EMERITUS NEWS ADVOCACY-LEGAL

SUPREME COURT STRIKES CONVICTION IN G-P-S TRACKING DRUG CASE / WARRANT MUST BE ISSUED BEFORE TRACKING

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- A Washington D-C drug defendant, Antoine Jones won his appeal of a conviction, based on evidence obtained by a GPS tracking device attached to his wife's car by investigators. The problem was, a warrant to attach the device had expired before crucial evidence was obtained.

Today, in a unanimous ruling, the U-S Supreme Court stated,

"The Government obtained a search warrant permitting it to install a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle registered to respondent Jones’s wife. The warrant authorized installation in the District of Columbia and within 10 days, but agents installed the device on the 11th day and in Maryland. The Government then tracked the vehicle’s movements for 28 days. It subsequently secured an indictment of Jones and others on drug trafficking conspiracy charges. The District Court suppressed the GPS data obtained while the vehicle was parked at Jones’s residence, but held the remaining data admissible because Jones had no reasonable expectation of privacy when the vehicle was on public streets. Jones was convicted. The D. C. Circuit reversed, concluding that admission of the evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment.
The justices concluded the Government’s attachment of the GPS device to the vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 3–12. (a) The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Here, the Government’s physical intrusion on an “effect” for the purpose of obtaining information constitutes a “search.”

HOWEVER, the court left open other issues related to privacy and search relating to GPS tracking, adding,

"There is no precedent for the proposition that whether a search has occurred depends on the nature of the crime being investigated. And even accepting that novelty, it remains unexplained why a 4-week investigation is “surely” too long and why a drug-trafficking conspiracy involving substantial amounts of cash and narcotics is not an “extra- ordinary offens[e]” which may permit longer observation. See post, at 13–14. What of a 2-day monitoring of a suspected purveyor of stolen electronics? Or of a 6-month monitoring of a suspected terrorist? We may have to grapple with these “vexing problems” in some future case.....".

Full text of actual Supreme Court decision on Jones case, click here. 01/23/2012

U-S SUPREME COURT REJECTS TEXAS LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING MAP DRAWN BY LOWER COURT / FINAL RULINGS STILL MONTHS AWAY

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- In a unanimous opinion, the U-S Supreme Court today rejected a Texas legislative redistricting map, which was drawn up by the three judge federal panel in San Antonio. The panel redrew the map claiming the Texas legislature discriminated against Latino voters by unlawfully dividing their districts, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Latino activists claim more districts should be favorable to electing Latino representatives since Latinos made up two thirds of Texas' population increase from 2000-2010. The state received four more congressional districts as a result of the 2010 census. State lawmakers had challenged the three judge panel's redrawn map. Today's ruling by the U-S Supreme Court gave them a partial win. However, it ordered the lower court to reconsider and address only those areas where the lower court determines the state legislature's actions violated the Voting Rights Act.

Full text of actual U-S Supreme Court decision, click here. 01/20/2012

U-S SUPREME COURT EXTENDS COPYRIGHT PROTECTION TO FOREIGN ARTISTS AND WRITERS / WILL AFFECT WHAT AMERICAN CONSUMERS PAY

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- In a 6-2 decision, the U-S Supreme Court has granted foreign artists and writers copyright protection, which allows them to collect royalties on their work, which had been considered "public domain".

The ruling upholds a 1994 law approved by congress and signed by President Clinton, designed to bring U-S into compliance with international law covering intellectual property. Spotty U-S court enforcement, up to this point, was used by China and others as proof the U-S was playing both sides of the fence when complaining about copyright piracy of U-S intellectual property, when the U-S was not willing to do the same for the work of international artists.

In the decision, GOLAN ET AL. v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who wrote the majority opinion for the Supreme Court, established the history of the case. "....starting with "The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works(Berne)", which took effect in 1886, is the principal accord governing international copyright relations. Berne’s 164 member states agree to provide a minimum level of copyright protection and to treat authors from other member countries as well as they treat their own. Of central importance in this case, Article 18 of Berne requires countries to protect the works of other member states unless the works’copyright term has expired in either the country where protection is claimed or the country of origin. A different system of transnational copyright protection long prevailed in this country. Throughout most of the 20th century, the only foreign authors eligible for Copyright Act protection were those whose countries granted reciprocal rights to American authors and whose works were printed in the United States. Despite Article 18, when the United States joined Berne in 1989, it did not protect any foreign works lodged in the U. S. public domain, many of them works never protected here. In 1994, however, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights mandated implementation of Berne’s first 21 articles, on pain of enforcement by the World Trade Organization.

Congress applied the term of protection available to U. S. works to preexisting works from Berne member countries. Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) grants copyright protection to works protected in their country of origin, but lacking protection in the United States for any of three reasons: The United States did not protect works from the country of origin at the time of publication; the United States did not protect sound recordings fixed before 1972; or the author had not complied with certain U. S. statutory formalities. Works encompassed by §514 are granted the protection they would have enjoyed had the United States maintained copyright relations with the author’s country or removed formalities incompatible with Berne. As a consequence of the barriers to U. S. copyright protection prior to §514’s enactment, foreign works “restored” to protection by the measure had entered the public domain in this country. To cushion the impact of their placement in protected status, §514 provides ameliorating accommodations for parties who had exploited affected works before the URAA was enacted.

As a consequence of the barriers to U. S. copyright protection prior to §514’s enactment, foreign works “restored” to protection by the measure had entered the public domain in this country. To cushion the impact of their placement in protected status, §514 provides ameliorating accommodations for parties who had exploited affected works before the URAA was enacted.

The U-S Supreme Court order states,

"This Court has no warrant to reject Congress’ rational judgment that exemplary adherence to Berne would serve the objectives of the Copyright Clause......The question is whether would-be users of certain foreign works must pay for their desired use of the author’s expression, or else limit their exploitation to “fair use” of those works. By fully implementing Berne, Congress ensured that these works, like domestic and most other foreign works, would be governed by the same legal regime. Section 514 simply placed foreign works in the position they would have occupied if the current copyright regime had been in effect when those works were created and first published".

The effect of this ruling means that "public domain" works, from foreign artists, used by civic groups and community theaters or music groups MAY eventually come under copyright and therefore, royalties must be paid for their use.

GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined. KAGAN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

In the dissenting opinion, Justices Breyer and Alito stated,

"....works from the American public domain would permit foreign copyright owners to charge American consumers more for their products; and that, as a result, the United States would be able to persuade foreign countries to allow American holders of preexisting copyrights to charge foreign customers more money for their products. See id., at 241 (statement of Eric Smith, Executive Director and General Counsel, International Intellectual Property Alliance) (“[F]ailure to [comply with Article 18]will . . . undermine the ability of the United States to press other countries to implement the same sort of protection in their implementing legislation currently pending in many legislatures around the globe”); id., at 253 (statement of Matt Gerson, Vice President for Congressional Affairs,Motion Picture Assn. of America) (similar). See also id., at 85 (statement of Xavier Becerra, House Judiciary Committee member) (“[R]etroactivity . . . is probably the best way to ensure that some of our older American works, anything from Motown, to ‘Star Trek,’ to ‘The Hardy Boys’ get the protection in some of these emerging foreign markets. It is important to ensure that countries no longer use our
U. S. law as an excuse for not extending retroactive copyright protections to some of our own works”.

Full text of actual Supreme Court decision, click here. 01/18/2012

DEATH ROW INMATE GRANTED NEW HEARING / SUPREME COURT SAYS INMATE'S ATTORNEYS MISSED FILING DEADLINE & QUIT WITHOUT NOTIFYING COURT OR CLIENT

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Alabama death row inmate Cory Maples has been granted a new hearing by the U-S Supreme Court. The court, in a 7-2 decision, claimed Maples was denied proper representation because his attorneys, with the New York firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, missed an appeal filing deadline and quit representing Maples without notifying him or the court.

The U-S Supreme Court decision (MAPLES v. THOMAS, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS), claims Maples was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death in Alabama state court. In 2001, Maples sought post conviction relief in state court under Alabama Rule 32. Maples alleged, among other things, that his underpaid and inexperienced trial attorneys failed to afford him the effective assistance guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. His petition was written by two pro bono attorneys,Jaasai Munanka and Clara Ingen-Housz, both associated with the New York offices of the Sullivan & Cromwell law firm. As required by Alabama law, the two attorneys engaged an Alabama lawyer, John Butler, to move their admission pro hac vice. Butler made clear, however, that he would undertake no substantive involvement in the case. In 2002, while Maples’ state post conviction petition was pending,Munanka and Ingen-Housz left Sullivan & Cromwell. Their new employment disabled them from representing Maples. They did not inform Maples of their departure and consequent inability to serve as his counsel. In disregard of Alabama law, neither sought the trial court’s leave to withdraw. No other Sullivan & Cromwell attorney entered an appearance, moved to substitute counsel, or otherwise notified the court of a change in Maples’ representation. Thus, Munanka, Ingen-Housz, and Butler remained Maples’ listed, and only, attorneys of record.The trial court denied Maples’ petition in May 2003.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Alito stated, "....a veritable perfect storm of misfortune, a most unlikely combination of events that,without notice, effectively deprived petitioner of legal representation. Under these unique circumstances, I agree that petitioner’s procedural default is overcome".

Full text of actual U-S Supreme Court decision on Maples, click here. 01/18/2012

SUPREME COURT RULES CREDIT REPAIR FIRMS CAN FORCE CONSUMERS INTO BINDING ARBITRATION

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Getting help from those credit repair companies heavily advertised on radio and television could leave consumers with more strings attached, thanks to the U-S Supreme Court.

The court handed down a decision Tuesday that restricts consumers rights to sue credit repair firms. The ruling means credit repair firms CAN force consumers into binding arbitration, which may have nothing to do with repairing their credit.

The court, in an 8-1 decision, said that credit repair firms rights to force arbitration trumps consumers rights to sue.

The case before the Supreme Court involved a credit card marketer, CompuCredit, and Columbia Bank and Trust of Columbus, Georgia, who were accused by three San Francisco consumers, in a class action lawsuit, of granting $300 credit lines for consumers trying to repair their credit, then charging them $257 a year in fees, which included a $150 annual fee. However, getting the cards required no deposit.

But, the defendants claimed, that as part of the credit card agreement, EITHER THE CUSTOMER OR THE COMPANY COULD FORCE A DISPUTE BE SUBJECT TO BINDING ARBITRATION.

The consumers in the case claimed the terms of the agreement violated the 1996 Credit Repair Organizations Act, however, the court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act applied due to fact the Credit Repair Organizations Act did not specifically prevent forced binding arbitration.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was the only dissenting justice, saying that,

"The CROA (Credit Repair Organizations Act), however, is distinguished by its disclosure requirements, prime among them, the obligation imposed on the credit repair organization to inform potential customers they“have a right to sue” an organization that violates the Act.§1679c(a). Yet the Court refuses to read this language in concert with §1679g, notwithstanding our frequent acknowledgment that “a statute is to be read as a whole,since the meaning of statutory language . . . depends on context.” King v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, 502 U. S. 215, 221 (1991) (citation omitted). As just explained, I believe Congress meant what an ordinary reader of the disclosure requirement would likely comprehend: A credit repair organization that engages in deceptive practices may be sued in court. Reducing the required disclosure to insignificance, see ante, at 4–5, the Court’s construction of the CROA scarcely advances the Act’s goals. Congress aimed to ensure prospective customers “are provided with the information necessary to make an informed decision,” and also to“protect the public from unfair or deceptive advertising and business practices.” 15 U. S. C. §1679(b). The Court’s interpretation, however, enables the very deception Congress sought to suppress. Today’s decision permits credit repair organizations to deny consumers, through fine print in a contract, an important right whose disclosure is decreed in the U. S. Code".

In short, depending on the arbitration language of the credit agreement, the Supreme Court decision now gives credit repair firms the right to force consumers into binding arbitration, regardless whether the credit agreement also provides consumers the right to sue.

The consumers had won the first two rounds of the case, in a federal district court, then in an appeals court decision.

Full text of actual Supreme Court decision, click here. 01/11/2012

APPEALS COURT BOOTS OKLAHOMA LAW THAT BARRED JUDGES FROM CONSIDERING INTERNATIONAL OR ISLAMIC LAW IN THEIR DECISIONS

More in this article from the LA Times, click here- 01/11/2012

SUPREME COURT GIVES CHURCH MINISTERIAL EXEMPTION FROM JOB BIAS LAWS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- A woman who sued a Michigan church over her firing is not protected by job bias laws. That's the decision of the U-S Supreme Court, which says religious organizations are exempt from job bias laws involving "ministerial" jobs.

Cheryl Perich was a 4th grade teacher at the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church in Redford, Michigan. Perich claims the school fired her when she tried to return to her job after battling narcolepsy and told her she was unfit for her job after she threatened to sue school officials. Perich claimed the school violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

School officials admitted they felt she was unfit for her job, and the Supreme Court sided with the school saying the school must "be free to chose" those who are involved with ministerial work for the church.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had backed Perich in her lawsuit, claiming the school's action was illegal.

The court rendered a surprising unanimous decision in the case, believing the rights of religious organizations to determine their staffs involved with religious teachings should not be subject to the ADA. Text of actual Supreme Court decision (HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN
CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION), click here. 01/11/2012

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT EXPANDS DEFINITION OF "RAPE" TO INCLUDE SEXUAL ASSAULT, RAPE AGAINST MEN

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Before today's announcement, the definition of rape remained unchanged since 1927, according to the U-S Justice Department. That being, forcible male penile penetration of a female vagina.

Today, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the definition would b e changed to,

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” 

According to Holder, for the first time ever, the new definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men.  It also recognizes that rape with an object can be as traumatic as penile/vaginal rape.  This definition also includes instances in which the victim is unable to give consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity. 

Furthermore, because many rapes are facilitated by drugs or alcohol, the new definition recognizes that a victim can be incapacitated and thus unable to consent because of ingestion of drugs or alcohol.  Similarly, a victim may be legally incapable of consent because of age. The ability of the victim to give consent must be determined in accordance with individual state statutes.  Physical resistance is not required on the part of the victim to demonstrate lack of consent. 

The Justice Department statement adds, that because the new definition is more inclusive, reported crimes of rape are likely to increase.  This does not mean that rape has increased, but simply that it is more accurately reported.  In addition, the UCR program will also collect data based on the historical definition of rape, enabling law enforcement to track consistent trend data until the statistical differences between the old and new definitions are more fully understood. 

The new UCR SRS definition of rape does not change Federal or state criminal codes or impact charging and prosecution on the Federal, State or local level, it simply means that rape will be more accurately reported nationwide. Full text of Justice Department press release, click here.   01/06/2012

EEOC HANDLES RECORD NUMBER OF CASES IN 2011/ WORKS THROUGH BACKLOG / NEW CASES MOSTLY SEX, AGE AND DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finished fiscal year 2011 with a ten percent decrease in its pending charge inventory—the first such reduction since 2002, achieved the highest ever monetary amounts through administrative enforcement, and received a record number of charges of discrimination, the agency reported in its annual Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) filed today.

The EEOC received a record 99,947 charges of discrimination in fiscal year 2011, which ended Sept. 30, the highest number of charges in the agency’s 46-year history.  EEOC staff also delivered historic relief through administrative enforcement—more than $364.6 million in monetary benefits for victims of workplace discrimination.  This is also the highest level obtained in the Commission’s history.  The fiscal year ended with 78,136 pending charges—a decrease of 8,202 charges, or ten percent. In previous years, the pending inventory had increased as staffing declined 30 percent between fiscal years 2000 and 2008.

“I am proud of the work of our employees and believe this demonstrates what can be achieved when we are given resources to enforce the nation’s laws prohibiting employment discrimination,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “The EEOC was able to strategically manage existing resources and take full advantage of increased resources in the past two fiscal years to make significant progress towards effective enforcement of the nation’s civil rights laws.”

Due to EEOC’s enforcement programs in both the private and federal sectors, 5.4 million individuals benefited from changes in employment policies or practices in their workplace during the past fiscal year.  Additionally, EEOC’s public outreach and education programs reached approximately 540,000 persons directly.

The agency continued to build a strong national systemic enforcement program. At the end of the fiscal year, there were 580 systemic investigations involving more than 2,000 charges under way.  EEOC field legal units filed 261 lawsuits—23 of which involved systemic allegations affecting large numbers of people; 61 had multiple victims (less than 20); and 177 were individual lawsuits.   

The EEOC’s private sector national mediation program also achieved historic highs, obtaining more than $170 million in monetary benefits for complainants, and securing the highest number of resolutions in the history of the program—9,831.  This is five percent more than the number of resolutions reported in fiscal year 2010.

In the federal sector, where the EEOC has different enforcement obligations, the Commission resolved a total of 7,672 requests for hearings, securing more than $58 million in relief for parties who requested hearings.  It also resolved 4,510 appeals from final agency determinations.

Some of the most recent cases include Blockbuster, Inc., which entered into a consent judgment requiring it to pay over  $2 million to settle an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S.  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced  today. The EEOC had charged the  Dallas-based global entertainment retailer with subjecting female temporary employees  to sexual harassment, retaliating against them for resisting sexual advances  and complaining, and subjecting Hispanic temporary employees to national origin  and race harassment and other discrimination.  The litigation concerned events that occurred in 2004 and 2005 at a distribution  center in Gaithersburg, Md.

Earlier this week,The EEOC filed suit against BOK Financial Corporation, doing business as the Bank of Albuquerque,for unlawfully discharged managers Elizabeth Morantes and Yolanda Fernandez because they were women over 40 years of age. The EEOC’s lawsuit also alleges that another employee, Betty Brewer, was disciplined because of her sex and age.

The commission, also this week,issued a statement, claiming Grand Central  Partnership, Inc. (GCP), a not-for-profit developer of real estate, offices,  and facilities around the Grand Central Terminal area in New York, violated a  consent decree and committed new illegal acts when it fired a black Rastafarian  security officer in retaliation for his complaints about threats of violence  and racism.  EEOC and GCP settled an earlier lawsuit about GCP’s treatment of Rastafarian  and Caribbean security officers with a consent  decree filed in federal court. In that  settlement, the parties had agreed that GCP would offer accommodations for the  religious practices of the Rastafarian security officers and not retaliate  against Rastafarian security officers for their participation in the  lawsuit. As part of that settlement, GCP  is still subject to supervision by the federal court in that action.

The new lawsuit claims that in 2010,  the hostility toward Rastafarians at GCP erupted again when a non-Caribbean  security officer threatened to shoot and kill a group of Rastafarian  officers. After a white security supervisor  made light of the physical threats made to the Rastafarian security officers,  one Rastafarian security officer objected to the supervisor’s conduct and his  past discrimination. Additionally, he  called the supervisor a racist for referring in the past to a group of  Rastafarians with the “N word” and threatening to stand in the way of their  getting paid for their work. After the  security officer complained to the supervisor and telephoned EEOC, GCP fired  him about three months later.

EEOC statement on 2011 case count, click here. EEOC Blockbuster case, click here. BOK Financial case, click here. Grand Central Partnership case, click here. 01/04/2011

ISSUES UPDATE: THE EFFORT TO CUT STUDENT AND MINORITY VOTING

More in this editorial from the New York Times, click here - 12/27/2011

1,400 PEOPLE JAILED BY MISTAKE IN L-A DUE TO I-D DEBACLES

More in this article from the LA Times, click here- 12/26/2011

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SAYS ARIZONA SHERIFF DISCRIMINATES AGAINST HISPANICS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- In a news conference held by U-S Justice Department officials today, Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez announced results of an investigation into the operations of the Maricopa County sheriff's Office, which began beck in 2008, in the later months of the Bush administration.

Perez said results of the investigation shoed, that MCSO engages in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing; specifically, MCSO engages in racial profiling of Latinos, and unlawfully stops, detains and arrests Latinos.

Second, MCSO unlawfully retaliates against people who criticize its policies and practices. 

Third, Perez claims the Justice Department found reasonable cause to believe that MCSO operates its jails in a manner that discriminates against Latino inmates that are limited English proficient.   We find that MCSO routinely punishes Latino inmates that are limited English proficient when they fail to understand commands given in English, and denies critical services that are provided to other inmates.   These actions violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Perez explained, "Our letter of finding provides details regarding these three areas, and outlines the investigative steps we took that led us to make these conclusions.   In the area of discriminatory policing, our investigation found that MCSO deputies engage in unlawful racial profiling of Latino drivers.   We engaged one of the nation’s leading experts on racial profiling, who conducted a thorough statistical analysis of MCSO traffic stops.   Our expert found that Latino drivers were four to nine times more likely to be stopped than similarly situated non-Latino drivers.   This expert concluded that this case involved the most egregious racial profiling in the United States that he had ever personally observed in the course of his work, observed in litigation, or reviewed in professional literature. Our case is about more than statistics. It is about real people, law abiding residents of Maricopa County who were caught up in the web of unconstitutional activity, and unlawfully stopped, detained and sometimes arrested.   We are not talking about isolated incidents.   We found discriminatory policing that was deeply rooted in the culture of the department - a culture that breeds a systemic disregard for basic constitutional protections.   It is MCSO’s prerogative to establish enforcement priorities.   At the same time, in the course of implementing its enforcement priorities, MCSO must comply with the Constitution and laws of the United States.  The problems associated with discriminatory policing are compounded by MCSO’s retaliation against individuals who criticized the Department.   People opposed to the Department’s policies were frequently arrested and jailed for no reason, or forced to defend against specious civil complaints or other baseless charges.The discriminatory jail practices are particularly troubling because MCSO has been on notice for years of problems in the jail.  MCSO acknowledged the importance of being able to communicate with Spanish speaking inmates in Spanish when it issued a policy in 2010 declaring “the use of Spanish is not only important to everyday communication; it is essential to the overall operation of the jails and the safety of the inmates and officers.”   Meaningful communication with inmates who do not speak English is not simply a civil rights obligation; it is a safety imperative for inmates and officers alike.In addition to our formal pattern or practice findings, our investigation uncovered three other areas of serious concern.   In these areas, we are not making formal pattern or practice findings at this time. Our investigation remains ongoing. These areas are:

• First, use of force. We uncovered a number of troubling incidents involving use of excessive force, and we will continue to look carefully at this issue.
• Second, failure to provide adequate policing services in Latino communities; and
• Third, failure to adequately investigate allegations of sexual assaults. 

"We continue to investigate whether the law enforcement policies and practices of MCSO have compromised its ability and/or willingness to provide effective policing services to the Latino community.   One deputy whom we interviewed referred to the “wall of distrust” dividing the Latino community and MCSO.   We are examining whether this wall of distrust has resulted in second class police protection services for law abiding Latinos in Maricopa County.We are also reviewing allegations that MCSO has failed to investigate large number of sex crimes.   This is not the first police investigation in which the Civil Rights Division has examined this issue.   We are currently working with the New Orleans Police Department to address similar issues.   The deliberate failure to provide police services, or investigate crimes, can compromise public safety, undermine public confidence, and implicate important constitutional protections.  

According to Perez, MCSO is broken in a number of critical respects.  The problems are deeply rooted in MCSO’s culture, and are compounded by MCSO’s penchant for retaliation against people who speak out against them. 

Perez added, "Now that I have outlined our findings, let me discuss where we go from here.   My strong preference, moving forward, is to work collaboratively not simply with MCSO but with community stakeholders to develop and implement a comprehensive blueprint for sustainable reform.   The community’s voice must be heard in this process.    Reform will require the participation of the entire community: MCSO’s leadership, Sheriff Deputies, public officials, community leaders, and residents.   Over the next days and weeks, we will reach out to all segments of the community, we want to hear your concerns and include remedies that will work in THIS community.   The Department of Justice will remain engaged until reformed is achieved, but when we are done it is up to the people of Maricopa County and the officers in the Sheriff’s Department to ensure that the reform is sustained. Let me take a moment and speak directly to the men and women of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.   These findings are not meant to impugn your character.   I believe that you want to keep the people of Maricopa County safe and want to uphold your oath to protect and serve.   These findings are about the lack of proper policies, trainings, supervision and accountability that would allow you to do your jobs in a safe and Constitutional way.   Our goal is to make your job easier and more rewarding".  

Full text of Assistant Attorney General Perez statement, click here. 12/15/2011

MUST SEE VIDEOS ON THE DEFENSE OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT / SPEECH BY ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER AT LBJ LIBRARY

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Below are three YouTube videos and an article from the Texas Tribune surrounding the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and a case, now before the U-S Supreme Court challenging redistricting in Texas, which the Justice Department claims, violates the act due to under representation of Hispanics and other minorities. The first two are parts one and two of the address by U-S Attorney General Eric Holder, during a speech in Austin, Texas, at the LBJ Library, on December 13th, 2011. The last is the speech by President Lyndon Johnson before a joint session of congress to push passage of the Voting Rights Act after 8 months of debate, including efforts by lawmaker opposed to the act, who were trying to prevent a vote. Story from the Texas Tribune, click here. 12/15/2011

HUGE BATTLE IN OREGON OVER RIGHTS OF BLOGGERS / JUDGE ORDERS BLOGGER TO PAY 2.5 MILLION FOR DEFAMATION SAYING BLOGGER NOT REAL JOURNALIST

More from the online publication, Seattle Weekly, click here- Additional article about attorney who defends journalists, click here. Full text of opinion from US District Court, Portland, Oregon, click here. Opinion on story from New York Times writer David Carr, click here. 12/07/2011

U-S SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM APPEAL

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The U-S Supreme Court today announced it will hear all the appeals court cases against the health insurance reform act, passed in 2010. The combined five and one half hours of hearings will center on the central provision which requires all Americans to have health insurance coverage, offering subsidies for those who are low income.

The date for the hearing has not been set, however, the timetable for each of the appeals has been decided. Two hours will be spent on the question, whether Medicaid can be expanded under the reform law and whether premiums paid for coverage are considered a tax. Another two hour block has been scheduled to hear the constitutionality of the law. Ninety minutes have been reserved to argue the requirement (mandate)that all Americans have coverage with subsidies offered low income.

The cases are:

NAT. FED'N INDEP. BUSINESS V. SEBELIUS, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.
FLORIDA, ET AL. V. DEPT. OF H&HS, ET AL.

DEPT. OF H&HS, ET AL. V. FLORIDA

FLORIDA, ET AL. V. DEPT. OF H&HS

Full PDF download of U-S Supreme Court order granting hearing (CERTIORARI GRANTED), click here. Filing history and brief filings in each case, click here. 11/14/2011

COMPLAINT: PUBLIC AIRWAVES HAVE LESS DIVERSE NEWS CONTENT DUE TO NEWSROOM CONSOLIDATIONS AND CLOSINGS

More from Deadline New York, click here - 11/14/2011

MILITARY PROBE CONTINUES OVER SERVICE MEMBER BODY PARTS SCANDAL AT DOVER AIR FORCE BASE

More in this article from Armed Forces Press Service - More in video below from Associated Press- 11/12/2011

TEENS WRONGLY CONVICTED IN 1991 MURDER FINALLY FREED FROM PRISON / DNA LINKS OTHER SUSPECT

More from NBC News video below- More from the Associated Press, click here- 11/04/2011

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy 

U-S GIVES B-P GREEN LIGHT TO RESUME GULF DRILLING

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) today approved a supplemental Exploration Plan (EP) submitted by BP for deepwater oil and gas activities. BOEM conducted a site-specific Environmental Assessment (EA) of the activities described in the plan. This is the 44th plan that has been approved following the completion of a site-specific EA since stronger regulations were implemented in June 2010. Prior to any drilling under the plan, BP must obtain drilling permits from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), which will continue to assess the information that is necessary to allow specific activities. 

This is the first EP that BP has had approved since the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent oil spill. Before approving this EP, BOEM confirmed BP's compliance with the bureau's rigorous, heightened standards established following the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. In July 2011, BP announced additional safety enhancements and performance standards they would voluntarily implement in connection with its deepwater drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico. BOEM has verified that BP has met the relevant voluntary performance standards. 

"BOEM is dedicated to ensuring that the development of the nation's energy resources is conducted in a safe and environmentally responsible manner," said BOEM Director Tommy Beaudreau. "Our review of BP's plan included verification of BP's compliance with the heightened standards that all deepwater activities must meet." 

The supplemental EP proposes to drill up to four wells in the Gulf of Mexico's Keathley Canyon Blocks 292 and 336, which BP acquired in lease sales in 1997 and 2003. An EP describes all exploration activities planned by an operator on a specific lease or leases, including the anticipated timing of these activities, information concerning drilling vessels, the location of each planned well, and other relevant information. The water depth at the proposed well sites range from 6,019 to 6,034 ft and are located 192 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. 

A statement released by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, claims that B-P is not enetitled to drill again, due to continued failurre to obey federal regulations.

“By filing its first drilling plan a mere week after being cited for multiple violations of federal regulations by the government’s investigation team for the Deepwater Horizon disaster, BP now stands for ‘Being Premature.’ The fact that BP is attempting to resume drilling in the Gulf even before comprehensive safety reforms have been implemented underscores the need to have the CEOs of BP and the other companies involved in the disaster testify before Congress on the accident, its consequences and the lessons learned. I am pleased that Chairman Hastings has agreed to my request to have the companies answer questions before the Committee, and I look forward to hearing from both the investigators and the CEOs of the companies on the Joint Investigative Team Report.”

Rep. Markey says his bill, (H.R. 501) reflecting the recommendations of the BP Spill Commission, has been blocked by House Republicans. Markey also claims that in 2010, during the previous session of Congress, Senate Republicans blocked similar House-passed legislation that would have improved offshore drilling safety.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management website, click here. Full text of BOEM statement, click here. Full text of Markey statement, click here. 10/21/2011

A MUST READ UPDATE: THE LATEST EFFORT TO CUT MINORITY VOTING

More in this article from Slate, click here - 10/21/2011

NAVY VETERAN SUES V-A FOR BENEFITS AS SAME SEX PARTNER / CHALLENGES "DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT"

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- An appeal has been filed with the Court of Appeals of Veterans Claims in the case of Navy Veteran, who according to her attorneys, is challenging the denial of her application for spousal disability benefits. Carmen Cardona, a disabled Navy veteran from Norwich, Ct., was rejected in her attempt to collect. the V-A cited a federal statute that defines a spouse as “a person of the opposite sex.” Cardona is married to a woman.

Today, the Yale Law School Veterans Legal Services Clinic filed an appeal on her behalf to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), the federal court that handles disputes over veterans’ benefits. She is believed to be the first veteran in the nation to demand VA recognition of same-sex marriage.

According to a statement from the clinic, Cardona married her longtime partner in 2010. She applied to the VA for spousal benefits, to which legally married disabled veterans are entitled, but her application was denied. Officials at the VA do not dispute Cardona’s disability, nor that she and her wife are legally married under Connecticut law. Instead, they cited a VA statute that, like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. The clinic students, who began working with Cardona in December 2010, are hoping to convince the CAVC that both the statute, and DOMA, violate their client’s rights.
Full text of statement from Yale Law School, click here. 10/13/2011

WELFARE RECIPIENTS FACING MORE DRUG TESTS TO QUALIFY FOR BENEFITS

More from the New York Times, click here- More from ACLU Florida press release, click here- 10/11/2011

DEMOCRACY NOW! NEWS CREW GETS $100,000 SETTLEMENT FOR POLICE BEATINGS AT 2008 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Attorneys for the radio and video news service, " Democracy Now!", have garnered a $100.000 settlement from the St. Paul and Minneapolis Police Departments, as well as the U-S Secret Service, for beatings they suffered while being arrested for covering a protest during the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul. The settlement also includes the promise for better training of officers assigned to protests. MUST SEE video below of announcement from Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! 10/05/2011

CBS AND PRODUCERS OF "PRICE IS RIGHT" SETTLE LAWSUIT OVER DISCRIMINATION AGAINST DISABLED

More from the Emeritus Newsroom-- A legal battle over the rights of disabled visitors to the game show, "The Price is Right", has ended in a settlement between the U-S Justice Department and Fremantle Productions, Inc., (Fremantle) in its role as producer of "The Price Is Right" game show, and CBS Broadcasting Inc. (CBS), in its role as the provider of the facilities and related services utilized in the production of the show.

The show, which is taped at CBS's famed Television City, in Los Angeles, was accused of failing to accommodate visitors and prospective contestants with disabilities.

In the agreement, the Justice Department claims complainants #1 and #2 alleged that the wheelchair seating areas at the Bob Barker Studio (Television City) were at the back of the audience seating area and that the lines of sight for the wheelchair seating were blocked by an elevated riser and by audience members standing in front of them. A complaint from another unrelated person (Complainant #3) alleged generally that TPIR has discriminated against individuals with disabilities because a very small number of individuals with observable disabilities have been selected as contestants on episodes of the show that have aired on television since the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) was enacted.

CBS and Fremantle Productions have promised not violate Title III of the ADA by, among other things, discriminating against any individual on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations.This undertaking includes, but is not limited to, the following:

1. TPIR will not use eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any of its goods, services, facilities privileges, advantages, or accommodations, including appearing as a contestant on a television game show.
2. TPIR will make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures to afford access to individuals with disabilities that is equal to the access afforded to individuals without disabilities,
3. TPIR will provide auxiliary aids and services when necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities and
4. TPIR will remove barriers to access for individuals with disabilities where it is readily achievable to do so in facilities that were designed and constructed prior to January 26, 1993, and which have not been altered.

Full text of ADA agreement court filing, click here. 10/03/2011

PENTAGON SAYS PROBLEMS AT ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY FIXED / AMERICAN LEGION WANTS REFORMS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Pentagon officials claim the changes have been made to fix problems at the Arlington Memorial Cemetery, which was the target of a fraud investigation last year. The problems, according to a statement from the American Legion showed, " mislabeled remains, and bodies buried in the wrong locations. This was not some trivial matter thought to have occurred once or twice, but perhaps in 6,000 locations or more. Cemetery staff, when questioned by incoming management regarding standard procedure manuals for burials and plot alignment, admitted no such written records existed, and work had been handed down by word of mouth. Electronic records did not exist; information was stored on index cards as if the Nation’s most prominent military cemetery was a 1950’s muffler shop".

Acting Inspector General, Major General William McCoy told a hearing last friday before a House Armed Services Subcommittee that the "mismanagement that was found in 2010, no longer exists". McCoy told the subcommittee that improvements will continue to improve record keeping and determine the true resting sites of remains, which have now been identified and those the remain to be determined.

A statement from the American Legion agrees improvements have taken place, with much more work to be done. The statement adds, "Over a year later, Arlington Cemetery is far from fixed, but it is on the road to recovery. The American Legion recognizes the hard work and dedication of the management and staff to make things right. While it cannot be definitively said no more scandals are left to surface, there is at least a newfound sense of confidence management will not flinch from addressing these scandals head on and will at least work to make things right. Yet even so, this cannot be the long term solution.
Now that the Department of Defense (DOD) has had time to regain its footing and begin to remove the stain of the failures at Arlington from its image, The American Legion urges Congress to place the ultimate ongoing responsibility of managing, operating, and maintaining Arlington National Cemetery and the U.S. Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery in Washington, D.C directly with the Department of Veterans Affairs through the National Cemetery Administration (NCA) with the ceremonial duties preserved as the domain of the Army through the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment",

Complete statement of Major General William McCoy, Acting Inspector General - American Legion statement on the issue, click here . YouTube Video of entire hearing, click here. See video of story below from Pentagon Channel (1 Minute). 09/26/2011

U-S SUPREME COURT DENIES STAY OF EXECUTION FOR TROY ANTHONY DAVIS / GEORGIA PRISON EXECUTES HIM

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The U-S Supreme Court tonight denied a stay of execution for Troy Anthony Davis, who was scheduled to died by lethal injection at 7 PM. The execution was denied so as the court could decide the issue.

Davis was executed around 11 PM eastern time. Witnesses to the execution say Davis said just before his execution, that he did not kill the off duty officer, that he did not have a gun. He also called for more investigation of the case to determine who committed the murder. The family of slain officer Mark MacPhail did not support delay of the execution, believing Davis was responsible.

Text of actual Supreme Court order, click here. 09/21/2011

FORMER ACCUSERS SAY MAN SLATED FOR EXECUTION IS INNOCENT / LAST MINUTE PLEAS MADE

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Georgia corrections officials, this morning, denied attorneys for Troy Anthony Davis a chance to administer a lie detector test as part of a last minute attempt to halt his execution. Davis, 42, was sentenced to death for the 1989 murder of off-duty Savannah Police Officer Mark Allen MacPhail. However, some of his former accusers now believe he is innocent and his life should be spared. The Board of Pardons and Paroles denied his appeal yesterday, as well as another motion to reconsider today, meaning his execution tonight remains on schedule. His attorneys have filed a motion in Butts County Superior Court to delay the execution. Some of the forensic evidence in the case is considered unreliable and a federal judge ruled testimony from an prison inmate, claiming Davis admitted to the crime, was "patently false". The case could end up before the US Supreme Court by the end of the day. 09/21/2011

"DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" ENDS IN ARMED FORCES / THOSE TERMINATED BEFORE REPEAL MAY RE-ENTER SERVICE

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20, 2011 – The law is passed, the studies completed, the findings certified and the service member training accomplished. Today, after years of debate and months of preparation, the Defense Department starts on a new footing with the repeal of the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law that since 1993 has banned gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

“Statements about sexual orientation will no longer be a bar to enlisting in the military or a cause for dismissal,” said Army Maj. Gen. Gary S. Patton, chief of staff for the Pentagon’s repeal implementation team.

In addition, former service members separated from the military under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell based solely on their sexual orientation will be eligible to reapply to return to military service. Patton said their applications will be evaluated using the same standards as all other candidates, and decisions will be based on needs of the service.

As these long-anticipated changes take place, Patton said he expects the repeal implementation to stay on track because of the pre-repeal training across the force. In addition, many other existing policies considered “sexual-orientation neutral” remain in place.

Duty assignments won’t be affected, and living and working conditions won’t change, Patton said. Service members won’t be separated or segregated based on sexual orientation, and will continue to share billeting and berthing as in the past.

With repeal, benefits will remain as they are. Service members will be able to designate whomever they want to receive member-designated benefits such as Serviceman’s Group Life Insurance, he said. Other benefits, such as basic allowance for housing, are limited by law and statute to cover only opposite-sex spouses and can’t be extended to same-sex partners, Patton said.

However, the Defense Department is studying the possible extension of other benefits where eligibility is not specifically defined by law, such as use of military morale, welfare and recreation facilities to same-sex partners. “We have not arrived at a decision on that,” Patton said. “The department continues to explore that possibility, post-repeal.”

Although the vast majority of military members and their families surveyed before the repeal indicated they had no issues with the repeal, Patton said he recognizes that some may. To those, he has a message: “We are not trying to change your beliefs. You have your freedom to exercise your beliefs and your freedom of speech.”

But with that, he said, “you have to maintain your dignity and respect for others.”

No new policy will allow anyone who disagrees with the repeal to break their contractual obligations. Anyone who has complaints or issues associated with the repeal should take them to a commander or inspector general, Patton said. Sexual orientation issues will not be addressed by equal opportunity channels in the way gender, race and religion issues are.

With the repeal in effect, Patton said he expects military members will honor it. “The repeal is a law,” he said. “The military follows the law and we are executing this as part of our mission.”

A key in carrying out the mission, he said, is a principle emphasized during mandatory pre-repeal training throughout the force that the military has embraced throughout its history.

“The training focused on the changes in policy, that sexual orientation is not a reason for a person to be denied enlistment in the service or separated from the service. And that we continue to treat all service members with dignity and respect,” Patton said.

Part of that respect, he said, is to allow all service members to live honest lives. “During Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, gay and lesbian service members were required by law to withhold their sexual orientation, and in some cases, they potentially violated their own personal integrity,” Patton said. “Upon repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, they won’t be placed in that predicament.”

As a result, the repeal “will strengthen the military,” he said. “It will continue to allow us to keep gay and lesbian service members in the military, and we will be a better military for it.”

FROM THE EMERITUS NEWSROOM- OutServe, the association of actively-serving gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) military members, yesterday released the results of its latest survey of LGBT military personnel. Many respondents expressed their expectation that there would be few problems with repeal, with 67% saying they expected their colleagues would treat them “universally” or “generally” without discrimination. The online survey was completed anonymously by over five hundred LGBT Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard personnel during the week of September 13, 2011: one week prior to the end of DADT. Since survey respondents are self-selected, the survey is not authoritative, but is a likely indication of the current status of LGBT troops.

OutServe press release, click here. 09/20/2011

DESPITE SUPREME COURT RULING AGAINST CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS, PUBLIC DISCLOSURE GETS SUPPORT FROM MOST COURTS

More in this article from the New York Times, click here- 09/19/2011

ANOTHER DEFEAT FOR TRAFFIC CAMERAS AS HOUSTON STOPS USE

More in this article from the Washington Post, click here- More in this article from the Houston Chronicle, click here. 08/25/2011

MCAFEE RESEARCH SAYS HACKERS IN CHINA ORIGINATE MOST INTERNATIONAL CYBERSPACE INTRUSIONS / U-S SECOND

More from this article in the Washington Post, click here- Direct link to McAfee report, click here 08/03/2011

NEW MEXICO STATE OFFICIALS SUED OVER UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT DRIVERS LICENSE INVESTIGATION

More in this article from the LA Times, click here- 08/01/2011

PRESIDENT SETS DATE TO END OF "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL"

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, July 22, 2011 - Based on recommendations from military leaders, President Barack Obama has certified to Congress that the U.S. armed forces are prepared for repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law.

There is a 60-day waiting period before the repeal goes into effect, so the law will officially come off the books Sept. 20. After that date, gay service members can be open about their sexual orientation.

The president signed the certification and delivered it to Congress today. More below Pentagon Channel Video.

Congress passed the repeal law in December. The legislation gave the military time to prepare the force and said repeal would happen only after the president, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified the force as ready for repeal.

The Defense Department chartered a repeal implementation team to coordinate the necessary changes to policy and regulations, and to provide education and training to service members. The team worked to ensure the smoothest possible transition for the U.S. military to accommodate and implement this important and necessary change, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said.

"Today, as a result of strong leadership and proactive education throughout the force, we can take the next step in this process," the secretary said. "The president, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I have certified that the implementation of repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention of the armed forces."

Panetta said he believes the repeal is essential to the effectiveness of our all-volunteer force. "All men and women who serve this nation in uniform – no matter their race, color, creed, religion or sexual orientation – do so with great dignity, bravery, and dedication," he said in a written statement on certification.

Panetta pledged to support a military free from personal, social or institutional barriers that prevent service members from rising to the highest level of responsibility that their talents and capabilities warrant.

"They put their lives on the line for America, and that's what really matters," he said. "Thanks to the professionalism and leadership of the U.S. military, we are closer to achieving the goal that is at the foundation of America — equality and dignity for all."

The services put together training courses for the force and more than 1.9 million service members have now received that training. DOD and service officials also looked at regulatory and legal changes that repeal entailed.

"I am comfortable that we have used the findings of the Comprehensive Review Working Group to mitigate areas of concern, and that we have developed the policy and regulations necessary for implementation – consistent with standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention," Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a written statement.

Certification is not the end of the road. The department, the services and the combatant commands must work "to train the remainder of the joint force, to monitor our performance as we do so, and to adjust policy where and when needed," Mullen said.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law went into effect in 1993. It allowed gay and lesbian personnel to serve in the military as long as they were not open about their sexual orientation.

On Feb. 2, 2010, Mullen testified to that Senate Armed Services Committee that he believed it was time to repeal the law.

"It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do," Mullen told the senators. "No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity – theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."

Mullen said he believes soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines can handle the changes.

"My confidence in our ability to accomplish this work rests primarily on the fact that our people are capable, well-led and thoroughly professional," he said in his written statement today. "I have never served with finer men and women. They will, I am certain, carry out repeal and continue to serve this country with the same high standards and dignity that have defined the U.S. military throughout our history". 07/22/2011

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ORDERS FORMER SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS TO REPAY $2.3 MILLION IN FEDERAL MATCHING CAMPAIGN FUNDS / ACTUAL COPY OF F-E-C REPORT

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Attorneys for Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards take issue with an Federal Elections Commission report , released today , that his campaign must repay $2.3 million in federal presidential campaign matching funds. The F-E-C claims Edward's campaign underreported cash it had as well as expenses. An AP report says Edwards got more than 13 million dollars in federal matching funds before terminating his campaign, January 30th, 2008. A federal grand jury recently indicted Edwards on six felony charges related to money that was used to cover up his affair and child with Rielle Hunter, a videographer who work on his 2008 presidential campaign.

Federal prosecutors allege Edwards accepted $900,000 in contributions from heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon and Texas banker Fred Barron, filing false campaign finance reports to hide the donations.

Actual text of FEC Edwards audit report , click here. 07/21/2011

MINNESOTA STATE GOVERNMENT BACK TO WORK / GOVERNOR SIGNS COMPROMISE DEAL WITH LAWMAKERS

More in this article from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, click here- 07/21/2011

NEWS CORP, FOX NEWS PARENT, FACES FBI PROBE

More in this article from the Washington Post, click here- 07/14/2011

FEDS UP SEMI AUTOMATIC GUN REGISTRATION IN BORDER STATES

More in this article from the LA Times, click here- 07/12/2011

U-S SUPREME COURT REJECTS DEATH SENTENCE STAY OF MEXICAN NATIONAL / TEXAS EXECUTES HIM

More from the Voice of America- The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected calls from around the world — and from the U.S. president — to delay the execution of a Mexican man convicted of a brutal 1994 rape and murder. Justices Thursday voted 5-to-4 against delaying the execution, which was carried out just hours later in Texas. International diplomats and Mexican authorities had asked for a stay so the case could be reviewed. U.S. President Barack Obama's top lawyer intervened as well, asking the Supreme Court to delay the sentence for six months. At issue was whether the defendant, Humberto Leal, had access to services from the Mexican consulate — a requirement under an international treaty called the Vienna Convention. A U.S. congressman has also proposed a law similar to the Vienna Convention provision requiring U.S. courts to give foreign nationals access to consular services, and to review any convictions to ensure a lack of consular help did not affect the outcome. Leal's lawyer has said that with legal assistance from the consulate, Leal might not have been convicted, let alone given a death sentence. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verilli said Leal's execution could set a dangerous precedent for U.S. citizens accused of crimes in other countries. He asked the court to grant more time for the proposal to be debated. But the Supreme Court said it could not rule based on the possibility of a new law. The court said it must rule based on existing law. Prosecutors noted that similar laws have failed to pass in Congress at least twice before. And they said there was convincing evidence of Leal's guilt.A similar appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected in 2008, when Texas was set to execute a different Mexican national. Actual PDF download of US Supreme Court decision, click here. 07/07/2011

FED APPEALS COURT OVERTURNS F-C-C RELAXATION OF MEDIA OWNERSHIP LIMITS IN MAJOR CITIES / CONSIDERED A "WIN" FOR THOSE OPPOSING FURTHER MEDIA CONSOLIDATION OF PUBLIC AIRWAVES

More in this article from TV News Check, click here- Full PDF download of actual Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision, click here. 07/07/2011

CASEY ANTHONY GETS FOUR YEARS, $4,000 FINE / JUDGE GIVES CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Judge Belvin Perry, this morning, sentenced Casey Anthony to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine for each of four charges she lied to police about the disappearance of her two year old daughter Caycee. Anthony was found not guilty Tuesday by a jury on all three charges relating to the death of her daughter. Anthony's time to serve in jail has not been clearly established since Judge Perry granted Anthony credit for time served, which Perry said will be established in a meeting, yet to be determined, between all sides. Meanwhile, and alternate juror says the prosecution failed to prove its case. the juror admits the verdict has fueled a public outcry, but that the evidence, in some cases, didn't support a motive for Anthony to have killed her daughter. More from the Orlando Sentinel, click here. Video of alternate juror explaining why the prosecution failed, click here. 07/07/2011

FED APPEALS COURT ORDERS IMMEDIATE HALT TO "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL"

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Los Angeles has ordered an immediate end to enforcement of the , "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", policy in the military services involving gay and lesbian personnel. Unless the Obama Administration appeals the decision to the U-S Supreme Court, which is unlikely, the Ninth Circuit order will stand. The full effect of the order remains to be determined, however, since the Defense Department had already undertaken policy training sessions for command and service personnel, the Obama Administration is nearing its announcement to certify dismantling of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". President Obama agreed that the policy was unconstitutional, however, Defense Department officials had wanted more time to make the transition. So the Obama Administration succeeded in obtaining a stay, from the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court, putting a temporary hold on the original federal district court order to end the policy. Full PDF text of Ninth Circuit Court decision, click here. Complete Ninth Circuit filing index , links and documents for, "Log Cabin "Republicans vs. U-S Defense Department", click here. 07/06/2011

CASE OF MEXICAN NATIONAL FACING DEATH PENALTY AWAITING LAST MINUTE REVIEW BY SUPREME COURT / INVOLVES U-S VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- With his execution scheduled for Thursday in Texas, the case of 38 year old Humberto Leal Garcia Jr., is at the center of a stay request from the Obama Administration before the U-S Supreme Court. At issue is whether the execution can proceed in light of an International Court decision that the U-S violated Garcia's rights by not allowing him access to Mexican Consular representation at the time he was charged and convicted for the 1994 rape and murder of a 16 year old girl in Texas. Obama Administration officials, in an amicus brief, filed last Friday, claim that since the International Court's finding, executing Garcia could cause problems with Mexico and its allies.

The administration filing states, "That breach would have serious repercussions for United States foreign relations, law-enforcement and other cooperation with Mexico, and the ability of American citizens traveling abroad to have the benefits of consular assistance in the event of detention".

Full PDF text of actual Obama Administration court filing, click here. 07/06/2011

CASEY ANTHONY FOUND "NOT GUILTY" OF MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER & ABUSE / CONVICTED OF GIVING FALSE INFORMATION

More from this special coverage page from the Orlando Sentinel, click here - 07/05/2011

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT STRIKES DOWN MICHIGAN BAN ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

More in this article from the Detroit Free Press, click here - 6th Circuit Appeals Court decision filing,click here -07/01/2011

APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS MANDATORY COVERAGE PROVISION OF HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- it's a win for health insurance reform legislation, which passed in the first two years of the Obama presidency. The case, referred to as, "Thomas More Law Center, et al. v. Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States", challenged the the mandatory coverage requirement as being unconstitutional.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati approved the mandatory insurance requirement. In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court wrote, "For now, whatever else may be said about plaintiffs’ activity/inactivity theory of commerce power, they have not shown that the individual mandate exceeds that power in all of its applications. Congress may apply the mandate in at least four settings: (1) to individuals who already have purchased insurance voluntarily and who want to maintain coverage, but who will be required to obtain more insurance in order to comply with the minimum-essential-coverage requirement; (2) to individuals who voluntarily obtained coverage but do not wish to be forced (at some indeterminate point in the future) to maintain it; (3) to individuals who live in States that already require them to obtain insurance and who may have to obtain more coverage to comply with the mandate or abide by other requirements of the Affordable Care Act; and (4) to individuals under 30, no matter where they live and no matter whether they have purchased health care before, who may satisfy the law by obtaining only catastrophic-care coverage. The valid application of the law to these groups of people suffices to uphold the law against this
facial challenge.

In a partial dissent against the majority opinion, which he also partially agreed with, United States District Judge James L. Graham (Southern District of Ohio) wrote, "Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 requires most Americans to buy a minimum level of medical insurance and, if they do not, to pay a monetary penalty instead. Today’s “question” about the “extent of the powers” granted to Congress goes primarily to its commerce power to compel individuals to buy something they do not want (medical insurance) as part of a regulatory
system that a majority of elected representatives do want (national health care)."Congress’s legislative finding that the “individual responsibility requirement . . . substantially affects interstate commerce” turns the analysis on its head. ACA § 1501(a)(1). Without question, forcing all individuals to purchase a product that not everyone would otherwise purchase will have an effect on commerce. But Congress cannot be tolerated to justify its exercise of power by creating its own substantial effects. In determining whether the substantial effects test is satisfied, the focus must be on the existing economic activity Congress seeks to regulate, not on the impact the regulation would have. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 125 (1942) (examining whether “appellee’s activity,” together with the activities of those similarly situated, “exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce”); Lopez, 514 U.S. at 558-59 (holding that Congress may regulate an activity that substantially affects interstate commerce). The inquiry then is whether plaintiffs’ “activity,” as it were, substantially affects interstate commerce. Much has been made in this litigation of the distinction between No. 10-2388 Thomas More Law Center, et al. v. Obama, et al. Page 58 activity and inactivity. The Supreme Court has often employed the word “activity” to describe the regulatory subjects of Congress’s power over interstate commerce. See Wickard, 317 U.S. at 125; Lopez, 514 U.S. at 559; Morrison, 529 U.S. at 609-10; Raich, 545 U.S. at 17. Yet I do not interpret those cases as drawing a constitutional line between activity and inactivity. That distinction would suffer from the same failings as the “direct” and “indirect” effects test of prior Commerce Clause jurisprudence. See NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 36-38 (1937) (rejecting the direct/indirect distinction and stating that the question of Congress’s authority is “necessarily one of degree”); Lopez, 514 U.S. at 579 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (noting that questions of constitutional law are often “not susceptible to the mechanical application of bright and clear lines”). Imposing an activity/inactivity line could hinder Congress in future cases from removing burdens on commerce that certain classes of individuals have passively enabled. See United States v. Faasse, 265 F.3d 475, 487 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding the constitutionality of the Child Support Recovery Act and rejecting the argument that the willful failure to make a court-ordered, out-of-state child support payment from California to Michigan was insufficient for Commerce Clause purposes). The inquiry should start by considering the “economic nature of the regulated activity.” Morrison, 529 U.S. at 610; see also Lopez, 514 U.S. at 559-61 (finding that possession of a gun in a school zone was not an economic activity).

Actual PDF text of decision, click here. MP3Audio of 6th Circuit opening statements, click here. MP3 Audio of argument on the merits of case, click here. 07/01/2011

NEW YORK STATE LAWMAKERS PASS SAME SEX MARRIAGE BILL / INCLUDES PROVISION FOR DIVORCE

More in this article from Reuters, click here- 06/25/2011

IMMIGRANTS RIGHTS GROUPS FIRE BACK AGAINST SEN. MCCAIN FOR BLAMING LATEST WILDFIRES ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS / FEDS DENY IT

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- During a news conference Saturday, U-S Senator John McCain, (R-AZ) told the media, “There is substantial evidence that some of these fires have been caused by people who have crossed our border illegally. The answer to that part of the problem is to get a secure border”. Monday, McCain staffers said the Senator meant that campfires from illegal immigrants have caused fires in the past, not in specific reference to the Wallo Fire, the state's largest in its history.In a statement sent to CNN, Angelo Falcon, President of the National Institute for Latino Policy, quickly criticized McCain saying: “The degree of irresponsible political pandering by Sen. McCain has no limit… With the lack of evidence, he might as well also blame aliens from outer space for the fires". the Arizona Republic is reporting that National Forestry Service Spokesman Tom Berglund told the newspaper that illegal immigrants have "absolutely not" played a role in the Wallow Fire. A GAO study is expected later this year on the re;lationship between illegal immigrants and wildfires in border states. 06/20/2011

SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY SAYS CLASS ACTION WAL-MART DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT CANNOT PROCEED AS IS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The U-S Supreme Court today ruled the discrimination case against Wal-Mart, which originated in California, cannot go forward as a class action lawsuit in it current form. Wal-Mart was accused of sex discrimination involving more than 1.5 million women who are current and former employees of the company. The Supreme Court decision today means that the lawsuit reverts back to the original plaintiffs in the case and cannot be expanded as is to include different types if discrimination claims. The decision therefore, reverses rulings from the originating federal district court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Remaining unsettled is the merit of original lawsuit, Dukes Vs. Wal-Mart, as to whether Wal-Mart, in fact, discriminated against female employees. The claim in the Dukes lawsuit is that local managers exercise their discretion over pay and promotions disproportionately in favor of men, which has an unlawful disparate impact on female employees. Today's Supreme Court ruling does not preclude the Dukes lawsuit being revised to those involved with a certain type of discrimination, while others are filed separately, in reformed class action lawsuits. PDF text of actual Supreme Court decision, click here . 06/20/2011

HOLD ON COLUMBO, THE KID AIN'T OLD ENOUGH TO CONFESS!

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- In another 5-4 decision, the U-S Supreme Court has ruled confessions from juveniles can be thrown out without adequate "Miranda" rights notification. The majority decision, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reversed a North Carolina Supreme Court decision which allowed the juvenile's confession regarding .......to be allowed as evidence in court. The U-S Supreme Court decision concluded,

"To hold, as the State requests, that a child’s age is never relevant to whether a suspect has been taken into custody—and thus to ignore the very real differences between children and adults—would be to deny children the full scope of the procedural safeguards that Miranda guarantees to adults".

The U-S Supreme Court majority, in its review of the case history, stated,

"Police stopped and questioned petitioner (Identity protected, alias given as, "J. D. B." ), a 13-year-old, seventh-grade student, upon seeing him near the site of two home break-ins. Five days later, after a digital camera matching one of the stolen items was found at J. D. B.’s school and seen in his possession, Investigator DiCostanzo went to the school. A uniformed police officer on detail to the school took J. D. B. from his classroom to a closed-door conference room, where police and school administrators questioned him for at least 30 minutes. Before beginning, they did not give him Miranda warnings or the opportunity to call his grandmother, his le-gal guardian, nor tell him he was free to leave the room. He first denied his involvement, but later confessed after officials urged him to tell the truth and told him about the prospect of juvenile detention. DiCostanzo only then told him that he could refuse to answer questions and was free to leave. Asked whether he understood, J. D. B. nodded and provided further detail, including the location of the stolen items. He also wrote a statement, at DiCostanzo’s request. When the school day ended, he was permitted to leave to catch the bus home. Two juvenile petitions were filed against J. D. B., charging him with breaking and entering and with larceny. His public de-fender moved to suppress his statements and the evidence derived, arguing that J. D. B. had been interrogated in a custodial setting without being afforded Miranda warnings and that his statements were involuntary. The trial court denied the motion. J. D. B. entered a transcript of admission to the charges, but renewed his objection to the denial of his motion to suppress. The court adjudicated him delinquent, and the North Carolina Court of Appeals and State Supreme Court affirmed. The latter court declined to find J. D. B.’s age relevant to the determination whether he was in police custody".

The U-S Supreme Court majority opinion also pointed out,

"The law has historically reflected the same assumption that children characteristically lack the capacity to exercise mature judgment and possess only an incomplete ability to under-stand the world around them. Legal disqualifications on children as Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 3 Syllabus a class—e.g., limitations on their ability to marry without parental consent—exhibit the settled understanding that the differentiating characteristics of youth are universal. Given a history “replete with laws and judicial recognition” that children cannot be viewed simply as miniature adults, Eddings, 455 U. S., at 115–116, there is no justification for taking a different course here. So long as the child’s age was known to the officer at the time of the interview, or would have been objectively apparent to a reasonable officer, including age as part of the custody analysis re-quires officers neither to consider circumstances “unknowable” to them, Berkemer, 468 U. S., at 430, nor to“ ‘“anticipat[e] the frailties or idiosyncrasies” of the particular suspect being questioned.” ’ ” Al-varado, 541 U. S., at 662. Precisely because childhood yields objective conclusions, considering age in the custody analysis does not in-vole a determination of how youth affects a particular child’s subjective state of mind. In fact, were the court precluded from taking J. D. B.’s youth into account, it would be forced to evaluate the circumstances here through the eyes of a reasonable adult, when some objective circumstances surrounding an interrogation at school are specific to children".

In a tart rebuke to the majority ruling, a dissenting opinion offered by Justice Alito, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, claimed, "Today’s decision shifts the Miranda custody determination from a one-size-fits-all reasonable-person test into an inquiry that must account for at least one individualized characteristic—age—that is thought to correlate with susceptibility to coercive pressures. Age, however, is in no way the only personal characteristic that may correlate with pliability, and in future cases the Court will be forced to choose between two unpalatable alternatives. It may choose to limit today’s decision by arbitrarily distinguishing a suspect’s age from other personal characteristics—such as intelligence, education, occupation, or prior experience with law enforcement—that may also correlate with susceptibility to coercive pressures. Or, if the Court is unwilling to draw these arbitrary lines, it will be forced Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 3 ALITO, J., dissenting to effect a fundamental transformation of the Miranda custody test—from a clear, easily applied prophylactic rule into a highly fact-intensive standard resembling the voluntariness test that the Miranda Court found to be unsatisfactory. For at least three reasons, there is no need to go down this road. First, many minors subjected to police interrogation are near the age of majority, and for these suspects the one-size-fits-all Miranda custody rule may not be a bad fit. Second, many of the difficulties in applying the Miranda custody rule to minors arise because of the unique circumstances present when the police conduct interrogations at school. The Miranda custody rule has always taken into account the setting in which questioning occurs, and accounting for the school setting in such cases will address many of these problems. Third, in cases like the one now before us, where the suspect is especially young, courts applying the constitutional voluntariness standard can take special care to ensure that incriminating statements were not obtained through coercion. Safeguarding the constitutional rights of minors does not require the extreme makeover of Miranda that today’s decision may portend" .Full text of actual U-S Supreme Court decision, click here. 06/17/2011

METRO AREAS RANKED BY PUBKIC TRANSPORTATION ACCESS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The latest study by Transportation for America depicts a grim future for the growing ranks of America's baby boomers who will depend on public transportation. Transportation for America is a campaign and lobbying group formed by businesses involved in real estate, housing, environmental, public health, business, transportation and equitable development.

The group's study predicts that by 2015, more than 15.5 million Americans 65 and older will live in communities where public transportation service is poor or non-existent, a new study shows. That number is expected to continue to grow rapidly as the baby boom generation “ages in place” in suburbs and exurbs with few mobility options for those who do not drive.

The report, Aging in Place, Stuck without Options, ranks metro areas by the percentage of seniors with poor access to public transportation, now and in the coming years, and presents other data on aging and transportation.

Metropolitan Rankings by Percentage of Seniors Age 65-79 with Poor Transit Access in 2015*

* Rankings are based on an analysis conducted by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT). Poor transit access was determined using the Transit Access Index (TAI).
** Kenosha, WI did not provide transit data for its bus service and was therefore excluded from the top five.

Without access to affordable travel options, seniors age 65 and older who no longer drive make 15 percent fewer trips to the doctor, 59 percent fewer trips to shop or eat out and 65 percent fewer trips to visit friends and family, than drivers of the same age, research shows. As the cost of owning and fueling a vehicle rises, many older Americans who can still drive nonetheless will be looking for lower-cost options.

The transportation issues of an aging America are national in scope, and cash-strapped state and local governments will be looking for federal support in meeting their needs, Smith said. As Congress prepares this summer to adopt a new, long-term transportation authorization, Aging in Place, Stuck without Options outlines policies to help ensure that older Americans can remain mobile, active and independent:

• Increase funding support for communities looking to improve service such as buses, trains, vanpools, paratransit and ridesharing;
• Provide funding and incentives for transit operators, nonprofit organizations, and local communities to engage in innovative practices;
• Encourage state departments of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, and transit operators to involve seniors and the community stakeholders in developing plans for meeting the mobility needs of older adults;
• Ensure that state departments of transportation retain their authority to “flex” a portion of highway funds for transit projects and programs;
• Include a “complete streets” policy to ensure that streets and intersections around transit stops are safe and inviting for seniors.

To view the full report and to see the extended rankings, please visit http://t4america.org/resources/seniorsmobilitycrisis2011/

06/14/2011

REPORT ON IMMIGRANTS SHOWS MORE ARE COLLEGE EDUCATED

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Brookings Institution immigration policy analyst Audrey Singer says highly charged public debate on immigration has focused on illegal immigration and its costs. Her report underscores the contribution rather than the cost of immigration, since the net affect supplies the U-S labor market with more educated workers. Singer claims that the vital role of immigrants in the U-S is often lost in this discussion. Her report explains,

"Immigrants are now one-in-seven U.S. residents and almost one-in-six workers. They are a significant presence in various sectors of the economy such as construction and hospitality on the low-skill end, and information technology and health care on the high-skill end. While border enforcement and illegal immigration are a focal point, longer-term U.S. global competitiveness rests on the ability of immigrants and their children to thrive economically and to contribute to the nation’s productivity".

• The share of working-age immigrants in the United States who have a bachelor’s degree has risen considerably since 1980, and now exceeds the share without a high school diploma. In 1980, just 19 percent of immigrants aged 25 to 64 held a bachelor’s degree, and nearly 40 percent had not completed high school. By 2010, 30 percent of working-age immigrants had at least a college degree and 28 percent lacked a high school diploma.
  
  
• Forty-four (44) of the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas are high-skilled immigrant destinations, in which college-educated immigrants outnumber immigrants without high school diplomas by at least 25 percent. These destinations include large coastal metro areas like San Francisco and Washington, D.C. The 30 low-skill destinations, in which the relative sizes of these immigrant skill groups are reversed, include many in the border states of the West and Southwest, as well as in the Great Plains.
  
  
• Immigrants’ skill levels vary by metropolitan area due to historical settlement patterns and economic structures. In former immigration destinations, or “gateways,” with low levels of contemporary immigration such as Detroit, and re-emerging gateways such as Philadelphia, immigrants have high levels of educational attainment. In established post-World War II immigration gateways such as Houston, and minor-continuous gateways along the U.S.-Mexico border and in interior California, low-skilled immigrants predominate.
  
  
• Recent immigrants to metro areas with the fastest-growing immigrant populations have markedly lower educational attainment than immigrants settling elsewhere. Low-skilled immigrants are much more likely to hail from Mexico, less likely to speak English proficiently, more likely to be male, and less likely to be naturalized U.S. citizens than high-skilled immigrants.
  
  
• Compared with their U.S.-born counterparts, low-skilled immigrants have higher rates of employment and lower rates of household poverty, but also have lower individual earnings, in all types of metro areas. Almost half of immigrants with a bachelor’s degree, across all destinations, appear to be over-qualified for their jobs.

Summary page including links to full report, click here. See video with Audrey Singer below. 06/09/2011

LOS ANGELES TRAFFIC CAMERAS GET RED LIGHT / FACE SHUTDOWN OVER COST AND EFFECTIVENESS

More in this article from the LA Times, click here- Video story from KTLA-TV below. 06/08/2011

ACLU SAYS 40 YEAR "WAR ON DRUGS" HASN'T WORKED / PRODUCED MORE ADDICTS IN MORE PRISONS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- On the 40th anniversary of the "War on Drugs", the American Civil Liberties Union says the initiative has accomplished nothing, in fact, according to the ACLU the country is worse off because of it. Attorney Venita Gupta, from the Center for Justice, says the initiative has had a disproportionate effect on minorities and has cost the country billions to house prisoners rather than offer treatment effective programs to reduce recidivism. Gupta writes,

"The war on drugs has sent millions of people to prison for low-level offenses, and seriously eroded our civil liberties and civil rights while costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year, with nothing to show for it except our status as the world's largest incarcerator. There are 2.3 million people behind bars in this country — that is triple the amount of prisoners we had in 1987 — and 25 percent of those incarcerated are locked up for drug offenses. Taxpayers spend almost $70 billion a year on corrections and incarceration. A far more sensible way to deal with a public health problem like drug addiction is to provide treatment, which study after study has shown is more effective than incarceration. Texas, for example, has implemented a number of reforms in recent years that prioritize drug treatment over incarceration, and its crime rate has dropped to its lowest rate since 1973 as a result".

Full text of the ACLU press release on "War on Drugs", click here. 06/03/2011

PEACE CORP TOLD TO BETTER POLICE THEIR OWN / HEARING REVEALS MURDER, RAPES, OTHER CRIMES BY STAFFERS AGAINST STAFFERS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom-The most compelling testimony of the hearing was that from the mother of a murdered Peace Corp volunteer. Catherine Lois Puzey, mother of Slain Peace Corps Volunteer Kate Puzey, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday that her daughter was murdered on March 12, 2009, while serving as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Benin, West Africa. Her mother told the committee that from almost her first day in Badjoudae, Kate was warned about the aggressive sexual behavior of a man—(name omitted) -who is now accused of killing her. This man taught at the school where Kate was assigned to teach. He also worked for the Peace Corps during the summers, helping to provide language training to the new Volunteers. In this role, he regularly ignored the Peace Corps policy prohibiting sexual relations with the Volunteers and had a reputation for making aggressive, unwanted advances. Some saw him as a charming womanizer who used females for his needs and then discarded them; others viewed him simply as a sexual predator. Although Kate had stressed the importance of confidentiality – when she made her complaints about the perpetrator, knowing that the brother of the man she was accusing worked in the Peace Corps local headquarters – and despite the Country Director‘s promise that this confidentiality would be respected, the Peace Corps‘ Inspector General report later determined that Kate’s confidentiality was breached. Indeed, the brother of the accused killer apparently told (name omitted) that Kate‘s complaint had led to his firing within only a few days. The account (Click here for PDF copy) was another in a series of the Peace Corp failing to handle such situations, failing to establish a written procedure and course of action, being more concerned about public image than the crimes against their own staff. Others told painful stories of rape, whereas the victims were victimized again by Peace Corp administrators, who were more interesting in getting rid of the victims, than the perpetrators. See testimony of Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Ms. Jessica Smochek, Ms. Carol Clark, Karestan Chase Koenen, Ph.D, Ms. Jennifer Wilson Marsh, The Honorable Aaron S. Williams,Ms. Kathy A. Buller. Click on each name for specific testimony.

Legislation to address the problem, in part, through establishment of "Sexual Assault Response Teams", is being sponsored by Texas Congressman Ted Poe and Massachusetts Congresswoman Niki Tsongas.

.Video web cast (3 Hours 14 Minutes) of hearing, click here. 05/12/201

FEDS END IMMIGRATION BARRIER PROGRAM FOR THOSE FROM TARGETED COUNTRIES / IMMIGRATION STATUS CANNOT BE USED TO KEEP KIDS OUT OF SCHOOLS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Immigration rights groups called the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System or NSEERS legalized discrimination against muslims. That why the American Civil Liberties Union and others welcomed last week's decision by the Department of Homeland Security to suspend NSEERS indefinitely. The ACLU says NSEERS singled out immigrant men and boys from designated countries for extraordinary registration requirements with DHS, ranging from an extra half-hour of screening on arrival, through tracking of whereabouts while in the United States, to limitations on points of departure. Repeatedly condemned by the United Nations' Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, NSEERS mandated ethnic profiling on a scale not seen in the United States since Japanese-American internment during World War II and the "Operation Wetback" deportations to Mexico of 1954. Former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Commissioner James Ziglar was right in his appraisal of NSEERS, which the ACLU opposed from day one. Ziglar described NSEERS as a "disruption in our relationships with immigrant communities and countries that we needed help from" after 9/11, and lamented that it "caused us to use resources in the field that could have been much better deployed".Then, last Friday, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice sent letters to school administrators throughout the county, outlining the fact that it is illegal to deny entry to students on the basis of immigration status or to demand immigration documents. According to the fact sheet sent by the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education, all children in the United States are entitled to a basic public elementary and secondary education regardless of their race, color, national origin, citizenship, immigration status, or the status of their parents/guardians. School districts that either prohibit or discourage children from enrolling in schools because they or their parents/guardians are not U.S. citizens or are undocumented may be in violation of Federal law. Below are some examples of acceptable enrollment policies — including proof of residency in the school district — as well as policies that may not be used by schools to deny enrollment to your child. • Proof of Residency in the School District. o School officials may require o However, a school district you to provide proof that you live within the boundaries of the school district. Copies of phone and water bills, lease agreements, or other documents may be requested for this purpose. A school district’s requirements to establish residency must be applied in the same way for all children. may not ask about your or your child’s citizenship or immigration status to establish residency within the district, nor may a school district deny a homeless child (including a homeless child who is undocumented) enrollment because he or she cannot provide the required documents to establish residency. Full text of ACLU announcement, click here. Fact sheet from the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. 05/09/2011

OWNER SUBMITS PLANS TO CLOSE WEST VIRGINIA MINE, SITE OF APRIL 2010 DISASTER THAT KILLED 29

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Massey Energy, owner of the Upper Big Branch Mine, site of the explosion and fire, April 5th, 2010, has submitted plans with the Mine Safety and Health Administration to close the mine. Massey and federal officials will meet May 5th at the agency's Mount Hope, West Virginia offices to discuss the closing. Upper Big Branch Mine was the site of repeated safety and other violations. The final cause remains unsettled, but preliminary reports are that the mine exploded after a buildup of methane gas and coal dust, which were constant problems in previous inspections and often talked about among miners with their families. Since the miners were not represented by a union, the company only responded to inspectors about violations, which whistle blowers within the agency claimed were often minimized or eliminated when submitted to agency higher ups.

Since the disaster, the Obama administration promised more strict enforcement of federal mining and labor regulations. Their March, 2011, inspections were released this week, showing federal inspectors issued 134 citations, orders and safeguards during special impact inspections conducted at eight coal mines and eight metal/nonmetal mines last month. The coal mines were issued 55 citations, four orders and one safeguard; the metal/nonmetal operations were issued 69 citations and five orders. These inspections, which began in force last April following the explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine, involve mines that merit increased agency attention and enforcement due to their poor compliance history or particular compliance concerns, including high numbers of violations or closure orders; indications of operator tactics, such as advance notification of inspections that prevent inspectors from observing violations; frequent hazard complaints or hotline calls; plan compliance issues; inadequate workplace examinations; a high number of accidents, injuries or illnesses; fatalities; and adverse conditions such as increased methane liberation, faulty roof conditions and inadequate ventilation.

"Although we believe these impact inspections are making a positive difference for miners, some operators apparently aren't getting the message that it is ultimately their responsibility to find and fix problems at their mines," said Joseph A. Main, assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health. "When operators take that responsibility seriously, miners are safer and healthier."

On March 11, an inspection party arrived during the evening shift at S and H Mining Inc. in Campbell County, Tenn. After production started, the inspectors captured and monitored the phones to prevent advance notification of their arrival. They discovered conditions and practices that posed electrocution hazards to miners. There was no certification indicating that a pre-shift examination had been conducted at the No. 2 conveyor belt head drive power center. Also, a high-voltage cable supplying power to a conveyor belt head drive was not guarded, and there were footprints on the high voltage cable indicating miners had been exposed to the hazard. The inspectors also found a damaged trailing cable on a roof bolting machine located on the section, which would result in an electric shock to a miner who came in contact with the cable.The CO monitoring system along the conveyor belt was not properly installed, and there was a defective CO sensor along the belt flight. The belt conveyor entry also had accumulations of combustible materials up to 7 inches in depth along the belt and 12 inches at the head drive. Although the accumulations were wet, under continued mining operations, this condition could pose fire, smoke inhalation or explosion hazards.

In addition to the electrical, fire and explosion hazards, inspectors observed inadequate roof support conditions and discovered areas where the continuous mining machine had exceeded the roof control plan by clipping the corners of coal pillars, creating excessive widths in intersections and compromising coal pillar stability. These conditions could result in roof falls leading to serious injuries or death to miners in the area.

On March 4, an inspection party arrived during the evening shift after production had begun at ICG Knott County LLC's Classic Mine in Knott County, Ky. Inspectors captured and monitored the phones to prevent advance notice of their arrival. Classic Mine was issued four unwarrantable failure orders for accumulations of float coal dust, coal dust and loose coal along four conveyor belts in the mine. The accumulations measured up to a distance of 2,000 feet along one belt conveyor and in depths up to 14 inches. These accumulations were noted in the operator's examination books on the four shifts prior to this enforcement action, but there had been no apparent efforts by the operator to remove the combustible materials. If left uncorrected, the condition could have led to a mine fire. The operator had been cited 51 times in the last two years for violations of Code of Federal Regulations §75.400.

MSHA says that since April, 2010, MSHA has conducted 244 impact inspections. These inspections have resulted in 4,392 citations, 405 orders and 14 safeguards. Full text of MSHA press release, click here. 04/30/2010

SUPREME COURT RULES COMPANIES CAN HALT CONSUMER CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS

More from the LA Times, click here- PDF Text of actual Supreme Court decision, AT&T v. Concepcion, click here. 04/27/2011

SUPREME COURT CASE MAY DECIDE DRUG COMPANY ACCESS TO DOCTORS PRESCRIPTION RECORDS / FREE SPEECH OR CONFIDENTIALITY?

More from the New York Times, click here - 04/25/2011

NINTH CIRCUIT APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS BAN ON ENFORCEMENT OF ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW / LINK TO COPY OF ACTUAL DECISION

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California has upheld an Arizona federal judge's ban on enforcement of the Arizona immigration law. The appeals court decision stated;

".....we find that as to the (Arizona Law) S.B. 1070 Sections on which the United States is likely to prevail, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the United States demonstrated that it faced irreparable harm and that
granting the preliminary injunction properly balanced the equities and was in the public interest".

The court also noted the likelyhood of federal law trumping that of a a state statute in such a matter.

"We have “stated that an alleged constitutional infringement will often alone constitute irreparable harm.” Assoc. Gen. Contractors v. Coal. For Econ. Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1412 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have found that “it is clear that it would not be equitable or in the public’s interest to allow the state . . . to violate the requirements of federal law, especially when there are no adequate remedies available . . . . In such circumstances, the interest of preserving the Supremacy Clause is paramount.” Cal. Pharmacists Ass’n v. Maxwell-Jolly, 563 F.3d 847, 852-53 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added); see also Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that the balance of equities and the public interest weighed in favor of granting a preliminary injunction against a likely-preempted local ordinance).

The appeals court sent the issue back to the federal court in Phoenix, where it originated, and where the ban on the arizona immigration law was first instituted.

Detailing the history of the case, Appeal Court Judge Richard Paez, in his majority In April 2010, in response to a serious problem of unauthorized immigration along the Arizona-Mexico border, the State of Arizona enacted its own immigration law enforcement policy. Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, as amended by H.B. 2162 (“S.B. 1070”), “make[s] attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona.” S.B. 1070 § 1. The provisions of S.B. 1070 are distinct from federal immigration laws. To achieve this policy of attrition, S.B. 1070 establishes a variety of immigration-related state offenses and defines the immigration-enforcement authority of Arizona’s state and local law enforcement officers. Before Arizona’s new immigration law went into effect, the United States sued the State of Arizona in federal district court alleging that S.B. 1070 violated the Supremacy Clause on the grounds that it was preempted by the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and that it violated the Commerce Clause. Along with its complaint, the United States filed a motion for injunctive relief seeking to enjoin implementation of S.B. 1070 in its entirety until a final decision is made about 4810 UNITED STATES v. STATE OF ARIZONA its constitutionality. Although the United States requested that the law be enjoined in its entirety, it specifically argued facial challenges to only six select provisions of the law. United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980, 992 (D. Ariz. 2010). The district court granted the United States’ motion for a preliminary injunction in part, enjoining enforcement of S.B. 1070 Sections 2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6, on the basis that federal law likely preempts these provisions. Id. at 1008. Arizona appealed the grant of injunctive relief, arguing that these four sections are not likely preempted; the United States did not cross-appeal the partial denial of injunctive relief. Thus, the United States’ likelihood of success on its federal preemption argument against these four sections is the central issue this appeal presents.

Full text of actual appeals court decision, click here. 04/11/2011

COMMUNICATIONS GIANT GANNETT AMONG LATEST EEOC ACTIONS AGAINST EMPLOYERS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission has filed suit against suburban Washington, DC, based Gannett Company Incorporated, due to the firing of an Arizona employee, which the EEOC claims, discriminatory due to the employee's disability. The commission states that the employee, identified as Ms. Parker-Garcia, worked in Gannett’s Tempe, Ariz., facility as an application support analyst. After Parker-Garcia returned from a medical leave of absence because of a mental disability, the Gannett companies unlawfully discharged her, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The suit further alleges that during her employment, Parker-Garcia exceeded expectations and was up for a promotion when she went on the medical leave.

The EEOC states, "Such alleged conduct violates Title I of the ADA , which prohibits private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions and privileges of employment. The ADA covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments.The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Gannett Company, Inc. and Gannett Media Technologies, Inc., Case No. (CV 11-00675-PHX-DKD) in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in Phoenix after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The agency is seeking monetary relief including back pay with prejudgment interest, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. The agency is also seeking an injunction prohibiting future discrimination and any other curative relief to prevent the Gannett companies from engaging in any further discriminatory practices".

“Individuals with disabilities, including mental disabilities, are an underutilized resource that employers should utilize,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill. “Many disabled persons are qualified, ready and willing to work -- all they need is an equal opportunity. Employers must remember that disability does not mean inability. Cases such as these are important to society because they confirm that workers who want to work, but are prevented from doing so by employers because of a real or perceived disability, are protected by the law.”

Other recent actions taken by the EEOC against other employers include:

The Minnesota Department of Human Services agreed to pay a court settlement of $467,165 to 29 claimants who were denied employer contributions for retiree health and dental insurance because they were older than age 55 at the time that they retired. DHS also must to offer to pay future premium costs for persons who would still be entitled to receive them but for the unlawful early retirement provision.In its lawsuit against DHS, the EEOC contended that the incentive plans contained in collective bargaining agreements for certain DHS employees violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) because the incentive plan denied the employer contributions for premiums to persons over a certain age. (EEOC v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, No. 11-cv-00678 DSD/JJG in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota). In an earlier lawsuit involving the same incentive plans, U.S. District Court Judge Paul A. Magnuson held that the early retirement incentives are “facially discriminatory, and, as such, violate the ADEA.”

IN A VERY DISTURBING CASE, mentally disabled men were employed by Hill Country Farms, in a turkey processing operation in Muscatine, Iowa, called, "Henry's Turkey", being paid only $65 a month. According to the EEOC, "Henry's Turkey", subjected a group of 31 men with intellectual disabilities to severe abuse and discrimination for more than 20 years. The EEOC filed a lawsuit against the company last week in Davenport, Iowa. The company is based in Goldthwaite, Texas, but the work and abuse occurred in West Liberty and Atalissa, Iowa. According to the lawsuit, No. 3:11-cv-0004  CRW-TJS  , filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Henry’s Turkey exploited these workers, whose jobs involved eviscerating turkeys, because their intellectual disabilities made them particularly vulnerable and unaware of the extent to which their legal rights were being denied. The affected men lived in Muscatine County, Iowa, where they worked for 20 years as part of a contract between Henry’s Turkey and West Liberty Foods, an Iowa turkey processing plant.

"This case is a stark reminder of how important it is for the EEOC to ensure that the Americans with Disabilities Act is fully enforced," said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien.  “Workers with intellectual disabilities should never be subjected to the demeaning and discriminatory treatment alleged in this case.”  

Specifically, the complaint alleges that that the owners and staffers of Henry’s Turkey denied the workers lawful wages, paying them only $65 a month for full-time work; subjected them to abusive verbal and physical harassment; restricted their freedom of movement; and imposed other harsh terms and conditions of employment such as requiring them to live in deplorable and sub-standard living conditions, and failing to provide adequate medical care when needed.  

Verbal abuses included frequently referring to the workers as “retarded”, “dumb ass” and “stupid”.  Class members reported acts of physical abuse including hitting, kicking, at least one case of handcuffing, and forcing the disabled workers to carry heavy weights as punishment.  The Henry’s Turkey supervisors, also the workers’ purported caretakers, were often dismissive of complaints of injuries or pain.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended by the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAAA), which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability, including intellectual disabilities, in terms and conditions of employment and wages; and bars disability-based harassment.  The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to resolve the matter through conciliation.

“This case illustrates the importance of continued vigorous enforcement of the law in this area.  The victims in this case were subject to a hostile work environment and discriminatory treatment because of their disability,” said P. David Lopez, EEOC General Counsel.  “The EEOC stands ready to litigate such cases, wherever in our nation such employment discrimination might take place, to make victims whole and to bring workplaces into compliance with the ADA.”

Full text of Gannett lawsuit press release, click here. Full text of Minnesota DHS settlement, click here. Henry's Turkey Iowa case, click here. 04/11/2011

MINORTITY CHILDREN WILL BE THE MAJORITY BY 2019

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- A report from Bookings Institution demographer William Gray says minorities will become the majority in the U-S sooner than previously projected. Gray says minority children are already the majority in ten states and 35 of the country's largest metropolitan areas. Along with that has been a large drop in the number of white children. The highlights of the report state,

• New minorities—Hispanics, Asians, and other groups apart from whites, blacks, and American Indians—account for all of the growth among the nation’s child population.  From 2000 to 2010, the population of white children nationwide declined by 4.3 million, while the population of Hispanic and Asian children grew by 5.5 million.
  
  
• In almost half of states and nearly one-third of large metro areas, child populations declined in the 2000s.  White child populations dropped in 46 states and 86 of the 100 largest metro areas, but gains of new minority children forestalled more widespread overall declines in youth.
  
  
• In areas of the country gaining children, Hispanics accounted for most of that growth.  Fully 95 percent of Texas’s child population growth occurred among Hispanics.  Los Angeles was the only major metropolitan area to witness a decline in Hispanic children from 2000 to 2010.
  
  
• Ten states and 35 large metro areas now have minority white child populations.  Child populations in the Atlanta, Dallas, Orlando, and Phoenix metro areas flipped to “majority minority” by 2010.
  
  
• Segregation levels for black and Hispanic children are higher than for their adult counterparts, despite a general reduction in segregation over the last 10 years.  The average black or Hispanic child lives in a neighborhood where whites make up 10 percent less of the population than in the neighborhood of the average black or Hispanic adult.

04/06/2011

WORKER FIRED AFTER REQUEST FOR TIME OFF DUE TO LEUKEMIA TREATMENT

More in this article from the Washington Post, click here- 04/05/2011

D-A IN WISCONSIN SAYS REPUBLICANS VIOLATED LAW WHEN THEY PASSED UNION BARGAINING LIMITS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- A court hearing over the recently passed Wisconsin law limiting union collective bargaining rights could put Republican leaders in a tight spot. Testimony from staffers and others connected with the publishing of the law, necessary for public disclosure of proposed changes, indicates a hasty rush to get the law passed and sent to Governor Scott Walker for his signature. Union leaders got the support of the Dane County District Attorney in their case that the recent passage of a law limiting collective bargaining rights for state union employees, was illegal. Ozanne filed suit two weeks ago against Republican legislative leaders claiming they violated the Wisconsin Open Meetings law when changes were made to the bill without the required public notice. Republicans eventually forced the bill through the legislature, which was then signed by Governor Scott Walker. A judge later put a hold on enforcement of the law until legal issues were resolved. It could be another week, before the judge in the case makes a ruling. More in this article from the Capital Times, click here. 03/29/2011

COAST GUARD FINAL REVIEW FAULTS CENTRALIZED PUBLIC INFORMATION COMMUNICATIONS IN BP OIL WELL BLOWOUT / LINK TO REPORT

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Make plans for decentralized handling of public information and anticipate complications caused by political involvement in disasters. That was the advice included in a final report on the BP oil well disaster in the Gulf of Mexico last year. Prepared by the Incident Specific Preparedness Review team of the US Coast Guard, the report's PDF file is 167 pages. Team members were NOT part of the incident response. Members included those from government agencies as well as private sector for profit and non profit agencies. Among the reports final points, the ISPR team actually took a swipe at the media for misleading information, including reports of friction between the Coast guard and BP, over handling of the blowout. An actual segment of the report (below) points out problems coordinating the response.

"There are very few programs within the Coast Guard that facilitate direct communication and dialogue with State and local officials. The ACP development process is one of them. As evidenced by the last two major spill events, Cosco Busan and Deepwater Horizon, much of the external political pressure exerted upon the response organization was the direct result of not engaging local officials prior to and during the spill response. In the Deepwater Horizon incident,
this was further complicated by a misunderstanding, or lack of knowledge of agencies’ responsibilities set forth in the National Contingency Plan (NCP). All of this could have been addressed, and possibly avoided, during the ACP development process. Until the Coast Guard takes proactive measures to bring State and local officials into this process, the Coast Guard should expect to have State and local politicians impacting response operations".

The reports states, "This includes better defining the roles of the Secretary of Homeland Security (or designated Principal Federal Official), the White House, and other officials within the Administration. Crisis management experience or proven ability as a crisis leader is generally not a required qualification for elected or appointed political leaders, or even corporate executives. The Deepwater Horizon incident placed people into crisis management roles, and not all were able to demonstrate leadership in crisis as a core competency. The performance of crisis leaders during this incident was uneven at best. In some cases, the leadership exhibited undermined public confidence in Government as well as corporate officials".

The only content, in the report, that is anywhere near that cited by Fox News, states,

"The National Incident Commander concept worked very well in this incident, and provides a
model for selecting individuals with the necessary crisis management skills to lead response
efforts and to effectively manage future national incidents". President Obama appointed Admiral Thad Allen as Incident Commander.

But the ISPR team did fault the Obama Administration's centralized public information handling. Team members cited several problems.

• The Unified Area Command (UAC) JIC, and its subordinate JICs, were prohibited from releasing information or imagery without prior approval by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Public Affairs (OPA).
• The decision by the White House and DHS to create a centralized National Response Framework (NRF) crisis communications construct negatively impacted the Coast Guard’s establishment of a more decentralized JIC within the response organization.
• Several layers of review and approval by the White House and DHS prevented timely and effective crisis communications and hindered the Coast Guard’s ability to meet National Contingency Plan requirements for keeping stakeholders informed about the status of the response.
• The National Incident Commander served as an effective spokesman for the response organization and “whole of government” effort during the incident. The National Incident Commander and the National Incident Command (NIC) organization assisted the UAC by responding to many of the information needs of elected officials and senior level
Government officials.
• The Federal Government did not carry out an effective “whole of government” crisis communications plan for this incident, nor was it able to reconcile the differences in external affairs doctrine between the NRF and the NCP.
• The Coast Guard’s public affairs program was understaffed during this incident, requiring the use of personnel in external communications positions who were untrained or under-trained in public affairs.

And the team suggested that political problems in such disasters be included in preparations, explaining,

• The high-level political influence that will always be at play in a catastrophic oil spill needs
to be incorporated into both plans and exercises.

Full text (167 pages PDF download) of final US coast Guard report, click here. 03/28/2011

FOOD BANKS BATTLE PROPOSED CUTS IN CONGRESS / ADVOCATES SAY CUTS IGNORE EXPLODING DEMAND

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- As congress wrangles over the federal budget, food banks say proposed cuts come at a time when more families depend on them to avoid hunger. Feeding America, the country’s largest domestic hunger relief organization, says congress is debating a Republican proposal that cuts spending for food banks in 2011. President Obama released his budget request on Monday which contains food bank cuts for 2012. Both of these proposals include cuts to programs that serve low-income families.

“Feeding America urges the President and Congress to keep first and foremost in their minds the needs of our most vulnerable Americans as decisions are made about balancing the budget and reducing budget deficits,” said Vicki Escarra, president and CEO of Feeding America. “Programs that make up the federal safety net, including nutrition programs, which provide a lifeline to struggling families, absolutely must be off the table.”

Feeding American experienced a 46 percent increase in requests from emergency food assistance between 2006 and 2010, according to their Hunger in America studies, largely due to rising need as a result of the recession and widespread unemployment.

A study, released by the group last month, found high food insecurity rate counties, throughout the U-S, are more economically disadvantaged compared to the national average for all counties and for the U.S. population as a whole. An average of the annual unemployment rates for this group of counties was 14% in 2009, compared to 9% across all counties. The highest unemployment rate among these counties was over 28% in Imperial, California. The average of county-level poverty rates among this group was also extraordinarily high, averaging 26%
for the high risk group, and as high as 52% in Kenedy, Texas. Not surprisingly, median household income in this group was considerably lower than for all counties -- $31,078 versus $43,442. The lowest median income in the group was in Owsley, Kentucky ($18,869).

Geographically, those counties in southern Atlantic states had the highest rate of food insecurity, 35.2%, with counties in west north central states having the lowest, 2.2%. The study also pegged the number of Americans facing acute food shortages to the point of hunger at 50 million.

Full text of Executive Summary with links to additional research, click here. 03/25/2011

ACLU LAWSUIT AGAINST BUSH WIRETAPPING LAW GETS NOD FROM APPEALS COURT

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The American Civil Liberties Union today won approval from a federal judge to proceed with their lawsuit against implementation of the FISA Act by the former Bush administration. The ACLU filed the appeal after a federal district court dismissed the case in August 2009, ruling that the plaintiffs did not have the right to challenge the new surveillance law because they could not prove that their own communications had been monitored under it.

The ACLU says Second Circuit Court of Appeals today reversed a lower court decision, finding that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the law even though they cannot show to a certainty that the government is acquiring their communications. According to today's ruling, "the FAA has put the plaintiffs in a lose-lose situation: either they can continue to communicate sensitive information electronically and bear a substantial risk of being monitored under a statute they allege to be unconstitutional, or they can incur financial and professional costs to avoid being monitored. Either way, the FAA directly affects them."

In a statement today, ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said:

"The government's surveillance practices should not be immune from judicial review, and this decision ensures that they won't be. The law we've challenged permits the government to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans' international communications, and it has none of the safeguards that the Constitution requires. Now that the appeals court has recognized that our clients have the right to challenge the law, we look forward to pressing that challenge in the trial court". Full text of ACLU statement, click here. Actual Second Circuit ruling, click here. 03/21/2011

NEW HAMPSHIRE LEGISLATORS KILL PROPOSED LIMITS ON TEENAGE VOTERS

More in this article from the Washington Post, click here- "Rock the Vote" website with commentary on proposal, click here. 03/10/2011

DEATH PENALTY BANNED IN ILLINOIS / GOV. QUINN SIGNS BILL PASSED IN LEGISLATURE

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Illinois Governor Pat Quinn today signed a bill banning the death penalty, which had passed both houses of the legislature. Quinn received the bill nearly two months ago. The last execution in Illinois was 1999. According to the Chicago Tribune, the ban comes about 11 years after then-Gov. George Ryan declared a moratorium on executions after 13 condemned inmates were cleared since Illinois reinstated capital punishment in 1977. Ryan, a Republican, cited a Tribune investigative series that examined each of the state's nearly 300 capital cases and exposed how bias, error and incompetence undermined many of them. Chicago Tribune article, click here.

Quinn said his review had convinced him that it was impossible to administer capital punishment without mistakes.

03/09/2011

PENTAGON STUDY DOCUMENTS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN IN MILITARY PROMOTIONS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The Military Leadership Diversity Commission has sent congress and the Pentagon 20 recommendations to eliminate discrimination against women in military promotions. According to the 160 page report, women are denied promotions due to the combat exclusion. Most higher command personnel have completed combat missions in order to qualify for promotions. The commission recommends to combat exclusion be eliminated. Full text and summary of the commission report, click here. 03/09/2011

THE CAMPAIGN TO CUT STUDENT AND IMMIGRANT VOTING

More in this article from the Washington Post, click here- 03/07/2011

OBAMA TO RESUME MILITARY TRIALS AT GUANTANAMO

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Citing reform of military commissions, US Attorney General Eric Holder says trials will resume at Guantanamo and that the Obama Administration will continue efforts to close it. In a statement released today by the Justice Department, Holder stated,

"...it is essential that the government have the ability to use both military commissions and federal courts as tools to keep this country safe.   Unfortunately, some in Congress have unwisely sought to undermine this process by imposing restrictions that challenge the Executive Branch’s ability to bring to justice terrorists who seek to do Americans harm.   We oppose those restrictions, and will continue to seek their repeal.  It is important, however, that military commissions, as reformed by the Military Commissions Act in 2009 and other reforms, be allowed to resume.   In November of that year, after consulting with the Secretary of Defense, I referred a number of cases for consideration for prosecution in military commissions.   For the remaining cases the Guantanamo Review Task Force deemed suitable to pursue for prosecution, we will continue to work, along with the Department of Defense, to ensure that justice is done as swiftly as possible. The executive order issued by the President today strengthens the legal framework under which we will continue to detain those individuals who are at war with our country and who pose a significant threat to the security of the United States.   In addition, federal courts will continue to review the legality of detention of individuals at Guantanamo.   While we continue to work to close Guantanamo, these steps will ensure that the detention of individuals there is appropriate under our laws".

The Obama administration faced pressure to keep Guantanamo open after congress passed legislation mandating detainees not be tried on American soil.

  Full text of Holder statement, click here. 03/07/2011

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS PROTESTERS RIGHTS AT MILITARY FUNERALS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Protests sponsored by the Westboro Baptist Church of Kansas are covered under the right to free speech, as long as they observe local rules. The U-S Supreme Court, in a 8-1 decision found that since the church protested in compliance with local rules under police supervision, their protest was protected as free speech. The only Justice dissenting was Samuel Alito, who felt the group, "brutalized", the family of the fallen soldier. Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, Westminster, Maryland, was killed in Iraq in the line of duty in 2006. During his funeral, according to the finding of the court, the picketers peacefully displayed their signs—stating, e.g., “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Fags Doom Nations,” “America is Doomed,” “Priests Rape Boys,” and “You’re Going to Hell”—for about 30 minutes before the funeral began. Matthew Snyder’s father (Snyder), petitioner here, saw the tops of the picketers’ signs when driving to the funeral, but did not learn what was written on the signs until watching a news broadcast later that night. Snyder filed a diversity action against Phelps, his daughters—who participated in the picketing—and the church (collectively Westboro) alleging, as relevant here, state tort claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy. A jury held Westboro liable for millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Westboro challenged the verdict as grossly excessive and sought judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the First Amendment fully protected its speech. The District Court reduced the punitive damages award, but left the verdict otherwise in-tact. The Fourth Circuit reversed, concluding that Westboro’s statements were entitled to First Amendment protection because those statements were on matters of public concern, were not provably false, and were expressed solely through hyperbolic rhetoric. The Fourth Circuit held that he First Amendment shields Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case. The majority of the U-S Supreme Court agreed with the Fourth Circuit ruling. In the majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield West-boro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is affirmed" . Full text of actual Supreme Court decision, click here. 03/03/2011

SUPREME COURT RULES CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS ARE "NOT PRIVATE" / COURT SAYS COMPANIES ARE NOT THE SAME AS "INDIVIDUALS"

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The Freedom of Information Act prevents corporations from blocking public disclosure of documents sent to the government. That's the outcome of a case brought by AT&T, which was trying to block public release of embarrassing company documents showing it over billed the New London, Conn., public schools. The documents had been submitted to the Federal Communications Commission in its probe of the dispute. In their unanimous decision, the U-S Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, said corporations don't get to enjoy certain personal-privacy exemptions included in the Freedom of Information Act.

"The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations," Roberts wrote. "We trust that AT&T will not take it personally."

AT&T had argued that the controversial Citizens United case, which removed corporations from campaign contribution limits, extends rights to corporations as individuals, therefore, it should extend privacy to documents sent the government. The Supreme Court disagreed.

AT&T eventually paid more than $500,000 to settle that case. Actual Supreme Court decision (FCC v.AT&T), click here. 03/02/2011

SUPREME COURT: DYING CRIME VICTIMS STATEMENTS TO POLICE CAN BE USED IN MURDER TRIALS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- In a strangely divided ruling, the US Supreme Court has approved court use of statements to police from dying crime victims, rather than ruling those statements, "inadmissible here say". The case involved a shooting in Detroit. when police arrived, the victim, Anthony Covington claimed he had been shot by "Rick". after providing police with the assailant's address, police went to the home of Richard Bryant, where blood evidence was located. Bryant was arrested and charged for murder, after Covington died at a hospital. Police claimed the victim's statements should have been admissible in court since they were told to police during an, "on going emergency". However, during his trial, Bryant's attorneys objected to the victim's statements being used because they were "here say" testimony. The Michigan Supreme Court rejected Bryant's conviction due to acceptance of, "here say", testimony. Today's ruling by the US Supreme Court reverses that. In a 6-2 decision, the majority of justices ruled statements from victims during a police emergency response to the crime scene, are admissible, since the statements were not from witnesses after the emergency response. The ruling is interesting reading, since the dissenting views came from Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Scalia claims the decision places the Constitution in, "shambles". Actual US Supreme Court decision, Michigan v. Bryant , click here. 02/28/2011

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WILL NOT DEFEND, "DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT" / LAW ALREADY DECLARED "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" BY FEDERAL JUDGE / SEE LETTER FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The Obama administration announced today it would not defend the 1996, "Defense of Marriage Act". The act was ruled unconstitutional last July by Massachusetts Federal Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro in Boston. Still to be announced, is a ruling from a federal court in San Francisco on the fate of California Proposition 8, which was approved by the voters in 2008, banning same sex marriage. In a letter sent today to House Speaker John Boehner, Attorney General Eric Holder explained,

"....the President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 o f DOMA "Defense of Marriage Act" is unconstitutional".

Letter to Speaker Boehner from Attorney General Holder, click here. Actual decision from Judge Tauro, click here. 02/23/2011

SUPREME COURT GRANTS PARTIAL SHIELD FOR VACCINE MAKERS IN STATE COURT LIABILITY LAWSUITS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The U-S Supreme Court, on Tuesday, ruled in favor of vaccine makers, upholding federal law, which preempts some injury or death lawsuits filed in state courts. The case relates to the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act which contains a preemption clause on state court lawsuits, relegating most such claims to a federal vaccine court. The law allows such lawsuits if it is proven the vaccine was defective, or that the manufacturer failed to issue a warning about potential complications from such a vaccine. The Supreme Court stated that the family of Hannah Bruesewitz, could not sue vaccine maker Wyeth in state court over a diphtheria vaccine given Hannah in 1992, which the family claimed, caused their now 18 year old daughter to have seizures. The vaccine was actually made by Lederle Laboratories, which is now owned by Wyeth. Before filing the lawsuit in a state court, the family lost their case in the federal drug court, which determines compensation, in such cases. The 6-2 Supreme Court ruling stated the majority of justices believed Wyeth was protected by the 1986 act, whereas the company pays into a fund to pay for those cases where injury occurs, in exchange for protection from state court lawsuits. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling promotes a , "regulatory vacuum". The Bruesewitz family had hoped the court would broaden its ruling from August last year, in the case of drug maker Wyeth v. Levine. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld a Vermont jury's award for damages, involving a musician who claims she lost her right hand, because of an anti-nausea drug made by Wyeth. The Vermont jury ruled that Wyeth did not adequately warn of such problems, knowing that similar cases existed. Wyeth attempted to use the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 as a defense. However, since the complications from the drug were known and Wyeth failed to take appropriate action, the Supreme Court ruled against Wyeth. Actual Court Decision, Bruesewitz vs. Wyeth, click here. 02/23/2011

PATRIOT ACT EXTENDED THREE MONTHS / PRESIDENT WILL SIGN

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The House yesterday approved a concurrent resolution, thereby removing a roadblock for extension of the Patriot Act for three months. The House version of the extension called for the act to be extended until December 8th, 2011. The Senate version called for a three month extension as the act headed toward expiration at the end of the month. Due to the ongoing crisis over the federal budget, congressional leaders agreed to the three month extension. The house vote passing the concurrent resolution was 279-143. White House officials say they have the bill and the President will sign it. 02/18/2011

HAWAII APPROVES CIVIL UNIONS FOR SAME SEX COUPLES / NEW HAMPSHIRE LAWMAKERS CONSIDER REPEAL

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Hawaii state legislators have approved civil unions for same sex couples, with the new law to take effect January 1st 2012. Governor Neil Abercrombie, has promised to sign it into law after the state senate passed it, Wednesday, by a vote of 18-5. More in this story from Reuters, click here.

Meanwhile, another state which had already passed a law allowing civil unions, is considering a repeal. New Hampshire state legislators. Governor John Lynch says he will veto the bill if the legislature passes it. More in this story from Associated Press. the are three bills in the New Hampshire legislature dealing with civil unions, traditional marriage, 02/17/2011

SENATE AND HOUSE PASS THEIR OWN VERSIONS OF "PATRIOT ACT" EXTENSION / MUST RESOLVE DIFFERENCES BEFORE EXPIRATION THIS MONTH

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Despite stumbling on an earlier attempt to pass an extension of the "Patriot Act", house Republicans were able, on Monday, to pass an extension through December 8th. The Senate yesterday passed its version of the extension, but only for the next three months. Time and other details of the extension must be worked out in both chambers as expiration nears the end of the month. Opponents of the bill says it still provides too much leeway for federal prosecutors and investigators to illegally wiretap and use evidence against those not involved in terrorist activity. Democrats in the Senate were trying to tighten loopholes in the act, but resistance in the house may prove too much. Bill summary of HR 514, click here. Senate roll call and bill summary, click here. 02/16/2011

CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP SAYS TEXAS HAS SECRET DEATH PENALTY / SAYS MORE CUTS FOR PRISONS LEAVE SOME INMATES DEAD AND THE STATE PAYING LARGER BILL

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- A report released today by the Texas Civil Rights Project comes as state legislators consider cuts to cover a projected budget deficit that could reach $27 billion. The group claims Texas is well known for executing more prisoners than any other state. Executions are the public death penalty—they take place with transparency. Texas, however, also practices a “secret” death penalty. Prisoners are killed and maimed in Texas by appalling medical care. Texas incarcerates approximately 154,000 people in 112 Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) prisons around the state. The federal Constitution requires Texas to provide basic medical care for prisoners’ serious medical conditions. In the past, federal courts have had to monitor Texas prisons for grossly failing to meet this basic humane obligation. Texas is now facing a return to the “bad old days” when the courts had to intervene in prison health care. Texas pays just $9.88 per prisoner per day for health care, compared with $28.55 per prisoner per day in California—which is already under judicial supervision and has been ordered to release over 40,000 prisoners so the remaining inmates can receive constitutional care.
In this legislative session, the Governor has asked all state agencies to make significant cuts to their budgets. Prison health care will be a tempting target—prisoners have no powerful lobby, and are an easy political punching bag. Indeed, legislators have proposed slashing the prison health care budget by almost 25 percent. Texas would pay $6.00 a day, or less, per prisoner on health care. This would be disastrous. Balancing budgets on prisoners’ backs now invites far more expensive federal intervention later. California has been required to pay billions of dollars to make its prison health care constitutionally adequate because of short-sighted planning. To avoid federal court intervention and expensive upgrades later, there are very low-cost reforms Texas could enact now. A small number of elderly, extremely sick prisoners account for a very large percentage of the total health care costs. Paroling these low-risk prisoners so they can be cared for in the community, while still monitored by the state, would create substantial savings. The majority of TDCJ prisoners are parole eligible and incarcerated for non-violent crimes. If Texas (and the Board of Pardons and Parole) thought more carefully about who it imprisons (and for how long), it could save substantial amounts of taxpayer dollars without compromising public safety. Text of report from the Texas Civil Rights Project, click here. 02/11/2011

PBS STATIONS BATTLE POTENTIAL EXTINCTION AS REPUBLICANS VOW TO CUT CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides the lion share of funding for the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and its affiliates, remains on a Republican leadership list of cuts being proposed in the House Appropriations Committee. According to the group representing public broadcasting stations, there are six proposals to either eliminate or substantially cut federal funds to PBS and its stations. Those proposals, according to the trade publication, TV NewsCheck, include:

– H.R. 68, by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit federal funding for CPB after fiscal year 2013;

– H.R. 69, by Lamborn, which separately targets public radio programming funding;

– H.R. 235, the "Cut Unsustainable and Top-Heavy Spending Act of 2011," by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas);

– H.R. 408, Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan's "Spending Reduction Act of 2011";

– S.178, the Senate version of that bill, by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), and

– S. 162, the Cut Federal Spending Act of 2011 by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

House Republican leadership is expected to bring a bill to cut the CBP to the floor sometime next week. American Public Television Stations have mounted a campaign to get their members, employees, civic and government leaders and other supporters to push congress to keep the service. APTS website, click here. Both National Public Radio and APTS stations defeated attempts to cut funding last fall. 02/10/2011

PATRIOT ACT EXTENSION FAILS IN HOUSE AS TEA PARTY REPUBLICANS JOIN DEMOCRATS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- A bill to extend federal powers in the Patriot Act died today in the House as Tea Party Republicans bolted with liberal Democrats. As a result, the bill came up seven votes short of the needed two thirds majority to pass it. President Obama and Republican leadership had pushed for passage of the compromise measure, which opponents claim, gives the federal government power to perform arbitrary wiretaps without a court order and loosens restrictions on gathering evidence against suspects, who may not be involved in terrorism. A part of the act is set to expire at the end of this month. The extension rejected today, would have moved expiration back to the end of the year. Today's vote was the first major bill to see a revolt by Tea Party Republicans. However, congressional leaders on both sides expect a revision of some form to pass by the end of the month. Some supporters of the extension are demanding the expiration be moved to December 2013. Roll call count, click here. Bill summary of HR 514, click here. 02/09/2011

N-Y MAYOR BLOOMBERG SAYS GUN LAW INEFFECTIVE / SAYS TOO MANY UNFIT GUN OWNERS SOLD WEAPONS

More from the Voice of America- Last month’s shooting in Arizona of a local member of Congress and the killing of six people has again focused attention on the issue of regulating the purchase of firearms. A recent undercover investigation in that state show that guns can be easily purchased by suspicious individuals.

Nonetheless, gun control opponents remain adamant that stricter control would infringe upon the constitutional right Americans have to keep and bear arms.

Gun shows are common across the United States. They are held regularly in every state, including Arizona, where a gunman shot and killed six people and seriously wounded a U.S. congresswoman and several other people in early January. After that tragic day in Tucson, at the second of two gun shows in Arizona that month, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said a hidden camera captured an illegal transaction for a nine millimeter Glock, the same weapon used in the assassination attempt.

The seller sold the gun, after a cursory glance at the buyer’s ID.

Mayor Bloomberg said it is too easy for criminals, drug addicts and mentally unstable people to buy guns in America. “You can still walk into a gun show and buy a nine millimeter in the time it would take to buy a hamburger and fries at McDonalds," he said.

Bloomberg said New York paid $100,000 to fund the gun show investigation. New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. “This is not a new problem. It has been a long-standing one. What is new, is the mayor’s initiative to document these loopholes, and with like-minded mayors to petition Congress to do something about it," he said.

But U.S. lawmakers refuse to pass stricter gun control legislation. In 2004, they allowed a ban on large gun magazines, like the one used in the Arizona shootings, to expire. Instead, a majority in Congress follow gun control opponents who believe private gun possession is a constitutional safeguard against tyrannical government.  

Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America, said, “It reminds the government that there are limits to its power, which is the whole purpose of the Second Amendment.”

When asked about innocent shooting victims, Pratt said, “The bad things that happen with guns in the hands of private people is nothing compared to what happens when the government has a monopoly of firearms.”

Mayor Bloomberg and many other gun control advocates do not favor repeal of the Constitutional guaranty to bear arms. But the mayor contends that stricter regulation at gun shows is a small inconvenience needed to save innocent lives. Larry Pratt counters that any government regulation of firearms is a slippery slope that could end in tyranny..Voice of America text of story, click here - 02/07/2011

PHARMACY COLLECTS MILLIONS AS WHISTLE BLOWER AGAINST DRUG COMPANY PRICE GOUGING

More in this article from the LA Times, click here- 01/25/2011

MEMBERS OF BUSH ADMINISTRATION VIOLATED "HATCH ACT" / CLAIMED "GOVERNMENT BUSINESS" ON POLITICAL TRIPS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- In order to head off election losses expected during the 2006 mid-terms, the Bush administration converted a White House office for political use, among other violations, according to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC). The OSC issued a Hatch Act Report entitled, "Investigation of Political Activities by White House and Federal Agency Officials During the 2006 Midterm Elections". The report lists OSC’s findings following an investigation that revealed White House Office of Political Affairs (OPA) employees, as well as high-level agency political appointees, violated the Hatch Act through a number of practices that were prevalent during the months leading up to the 2006 midterm elections.

The report says the office examined: 1) the transformation of OPA from an advisory office to the President into a campaign organization that worked directly with the Republican National Committee to achieve electoral success for Republican candidates; and 2) the improper use of U.S. Treasury funds to support Republican campaign activity.

The OSC found,

"... that of the approximately 75 political briefings OPA conducted, a majority of them took place while presenters and attendees were on duty and/or in a federal workplace. Because in many circumstances giving these briefings constituted political activity under the Hatch Act, OSC now discusses whether either OPA employees or agency political appointees violated the Hatch Act by participating in briefings during duty hours and/or in the federal workplace".

Full text of PDF from OSC report, click here. 01/25/2011

U-S PAID $200 MILLION TO CUT GAYS FROM MILITARY BETWEEN 2004-2009 ACCORDING TO GAO

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- In a report released today by the Governmental Accountability Office, the United States government, in the fiscal years 1994 through 2009, the Department of Defense (DOD) separated over 13,000 active military service members under its homosexual conduct policy. According to the GAO, these separations represent about 0.37 percent of the 3.6 million members separated for all reasons, including expiration of terms of service and retirement. In 2005, GAO reported on the number of separated service members under DOD's homosexual conduct policy who held critical skills and the costs associated with administering the policy from fiscal years 1994 through 2003. GAO was asked to examine data from fiscal years 2004 through 2009. their probe shows that it cost DOD about $193.3 million ($52,800 per separation) in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars to separate and replace the 3,664 service members separated under the homosexual conduct policy. This $193.3 million comprises $185.6 million in replacement costs and $7.7 million in administrative costs.

In terms of the adverse operative effects from terminating gay service members, the GAO says of the 3,664 separations, 1,458 of these separated service members held a critical occupation or an important foreign language skill as determined by GAO and the services. More specifically, 1,442 (39 percent) of the service members separated under the policy held critical occupations, such as infantryman and security forces, while 23 (less than 1 percent) of the service members held skills in an important foreign language, such as Arabic or Spanish. Seven separated service members held both a critical occupation and an important foreign language skill. However, the number of separated service members with critical occupations could be an underestimation because of a number of factors. For example, the Air Force provided the occupations eligible for enlistment bonuses from fiscal years 2006 through 2009, but could not provide this information for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 because the Air Force's data were incomplete.

GAO summary of report on discharge of gay service members, click here. 01/21/ 2011

REALTYTRAC SURVEY SAYS 2010 BROUGHT RECORD NUMBER OF FORECLOSURES

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The 2010 home survey conducted by RealtyTrac shows a total of 3,825,637  foreclosure filings — default notices, scheduled auctions and bank  repossessions — were reported on a record 2,871,891 U.S. properties in  2010, an increase of nearly 2 percent from 2009 and an increase of 23 percent  from 2008. The report also shows that 2.23 percent of all U.S. housing units  (one in 45) received at least one foreclosure filing during the year, up from  2.21 percent in 2009, 1.84 percent in 2008, 1.03 percent in 2007 and 0.58  percent in 2006.Foreclosure filings were reported on 257,747 U.S. properties in December, a  decrease of nearly 2 percent from the previous month and down 26 percent from  December 2009 — the biggest annual drop in foreclosure activity since  RealtyTrac began publishing its foreclosure report in January 2005 and giving  December the lowest monthly total since June 2008. December Default  notices (NOD, LIS) decreased 4 percent from the previous month and were  down 35 percent from December 2009; Scheduled  foreclosure auctions (NTS, NFS) decreased 3 percent from the previous month  and were down 20 percent from December 2009; and bank repossessions (REO)  increased nearly 4 percent from the previous month — thanks in part to  substantial month-over-month increases in some states such as Nevada (71  percent increase), Arizona (52 percent increase) and California (47 percent  increase) —  but were still down 24  percent from December 2009.

Foreclosure filings were reported on 799,064 U.S. properties in the fourth  quarter, a 14 percent decrease from the previous quarter and an 8 percent  decrease from the fourth quarter of 2009. The fourth quarter total was the  lowest quarterly total since Q4 2008.

“Total properties receiving foreclosure filings would have easily  exceeded 3 million in 2010 had it not been for the fourth quarter drop in  foreclosure activity — triggered primarily by the continuing controversy  surrounding foreclosure documentation and procedures that prompted many major  lenders to temporarily halt some foreclosure proceedings,” said James J.  Saccacio, chief executive officer of RealtyTrac. “Even so, 2010 foreclosure  activity still hit a record high for our report, and many of the foreclosure  proceedings that were stopped in late 2010 — which we estimate may be as high  as a quarter million — will likely be re-started and add to the numbers in  early 2011”. 01/13/2011

ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE DUMPS DEATH PENALTY / BILL SENT TO GOV. QUINN FOR SIGNATURE / QUINN SILENT

More in this story from Associated Press, click here- 01/11/2011

STATES CONSIDER ATTORNEY FINES FOR BOGUS DOCUMENTS IN FORECLOSURE CASES

More in this article from the New York Times, click here- 01/11/2011

HATE SPEECH AND GUN LAWS / DO THEY WORSEN A CLIMATE OF INTOLERANCE?

More in this MUST READ article from the LA Times, click here- 01/10/2011

TEXAS MAN FREED AFTER 30 YEARS BY DNA EVIDENCE / WAS CONVICTED OF CARJACKING AND RAPE / TEXAS HAS HIGHEST NUMBER OF DNA EXONERATIONS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- 51 Year old Cornelius Dupree Jr. was freed by a Dallas judge today after being cleared in a 1979 case which sent him to jail for 75 years. DNA tests, not available at the time of his trial proved he was not connected to the crime. His long battle for freedom was aided by the Innocence Project and famed criminal attorney Barry Scheck. So far in the U-S, 266 people, convicted in their trials, have been freed by DNA evidence. Dupree was the 41st defendant in Texas, cleared by DNA evidence after being convicted. Texas has more DNA conviction reversals than any other state. See NBC news story below. More from this story in the Dallas Morning News, click here. 01/04/2011

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy 

RECENT SUPREME COURT RULING FUELS APPEALS IN DEPORTATION CASES

More in this article from the Washington Post, click here- 12/30/2010

OBAMA SIGNS REPEAL OF "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" / RULE STILL IN EFFECT TILL PHASE OUT IN PLACE

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy toward gays serving the military took effect this morning, as President Obama signed it into law. The repeal passed the Senate on Saturday, but Defense Department officials say the rule is still in effect until a phase out plan is put into place. That phase out includes changes in training and outreach to military personnel in order to promote understanding and awareness of the new policy.

During the signing ceremony this morning at the White House, Obama recounted the story of a World War Two vet who was saved by a friend, he would later learn more about. According to Obama,

"Sixty-six years ago, in the dense, snow-covered forests of Western Europe, Allied Forces were beating back a massive assault in what would become known as the Battle of the Bulge.  And in the final days of fighting, a regiment in the 80th Division of Patton’s Third Army came under fire.  The men were traveling along a narrow trail.  They were exposed and they were vulnerable.  Hundreds of soldiers were cut down by the enemy. 

And during the firefight, a private named Lloyd Corwin tumbled 40 feet down the deep side of a ravine.  And dazed and trapped, he was as good as dead.  But one soldier, a friend, turned back.  And with shells landing around him, amid smoke and chaos and the screams of wounded men, this soldier, this friend, scaled down the icy slope, risking his own life to bring Private Corwin to safer ground. 

For the rest of his years, Lloyd credited this soldier, this friend, named Andy Lee, with saving his life, knowing he would never have made it out alone.  It was a full four decades after the war, when the two friends reunited in their golden years, that Lloyd learned that the man who saved his life, his friend Andy, was gay.  He had no idea.  And he didn’t much care.  Lloyd knew what mattered.  He knew what had kept him alive; what made it possible for him to come home and start a family and live the rest of his life.  It was his friend. 

And Lloyd’s son is with us today.  And he knew that valor and sacrifice are no more limited by sexual orientation than they are by race or by gender or by religion or by creed; that what made it possible for him to survive the battlefields of Europe is the reason that we are here today.   (Applause.)  That's the reason we are here today".

Full text of the President's speech, click here. Video of signing below. 12/22/2010

STATES, JURIES ORDER FEWER EXECUTIONS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- One of the best known advocacy groups that opposes the death penalty says the number of executions is trending down. There were 12 percent fewer executions in 2010 compared to 2009 and a more than 50 percent drop compared to 1999, according to a report released today by the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). Texas had 29 percent fewer executions in 2010 than the previous year.

DPIC projects that the number of new death sentences will be 114 for 2010, remaining near last year’s number of 112, which was the lowest number since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Death sentences declined in all four regions of the country over the past ten years, with a 50 percent decrease nationwide when the current decade is
compared to the 1990s.

“Whether it’s concerns about the high costs of the death penalty at a time when budgets
are being slashed, the risks of executing the innocent, unfairness, or other reasons, the
nation continued to move away from the death penalty in 2010,” said Richard Dieter,
DPIC’s Executive Director and the report’s author.

The group claims that even with a recent dramatic shift in political alliances, candidates who questioned the death penalty were elected across the country, including governors in California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Kansas, and Illinois. For example, Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris were elected as governor and attorney general of California, despite heavy TV ads attacking them as death penalty opponents. Daniel Malloy, who opposes the death penalty, was elected governor of Connecticut in the midst of a high-profile capital trial. As its new governor, Kansas elected conservative Sam Brownback, who has expressed moral reservations about capital punishment. “This year’s election results confirm polling data that suggests opposing the death penalty is an acceptable position for elected officials and candidates. Voters hold other issues, such as the economy and jobs, as much higher priorities,” Dieter said.

Full text of Death Penalty Information Center press release, click here. 12/21/2010

OBAMA SIGNS NEW LAW TO PREVENT CHILD AND DOMESTIC ABUSE

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- President Obama has signed the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) which includes the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA.) In a signing ceremony yesterday at the White House, the President outlined the main points of the new law designed to fund community efforts to help those at risk of abusing as well as those who are abused. The act provides funding for nearly 1,700 shelters and service programs for victims of domestic violence and their children.  It also supports the National Domestic Violence Hotline, whose staff and volunteers answer more than 22,000 calls for help each month and link victims with the resources they need to rebuild their lives.

Obama praised the bi-partisan supporters in congress, who made it possible to pass S. 3817, the “CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010” . Supporter claim, in 2008, 772,000 children were victims of abuse and neglect.  Nearly 2,000 of those children died. By providing states and local communities with new tools to identify and treat abuse and neglect, CAPTA-funded services will continue to protect children across the country.  Prevention efforts will help parents by addressing high risk-factors like substance abuse, mental illness and domestic violence.

The act also:

Re authorizes the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act through FY2015, and revises grant requirements. Directs the Secretary to award formula grants to states and Indian tribes to assist in supporting programs and projects, including through subgrants.

Directs the Secretary to award grants for: (1) the establishment of two national resource centers and at least seven special issue resource centers; (2) a National Resource Center on Domestic Violence; and (3) specialized services for abused parents and their children.

Revises requirements for grants for State Domestic Violence Coalitions and the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Directs the Secretary to enter into cooperative five-year agreements with State Domestic Violence Coalitions for local community projects to prevent family, domestic, and dating violence, using a coordinated community response model and through prevention and education programs.

Re authorizes through FY2015 the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act of 1978 and the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988.

Full text of S.3817 bill summary, the, "CAPTA Re-Authorization Act of 2010", click here. 12/21/2010

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT SAYS "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" STILL IN EFFECT UNTIL "CERTIFIED PLAN" IN PLACE / TOP MILITARY OFFICIALS WELCOME SENATE REPEAL

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Despite the Senate's Saturday repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy toward gays in the military, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the policy is still in effect until the Obama administration has a plan in place to phase it out. The exact timetable for reversing enforcement of the policy has not been set, but Gates, in a statement released today (Sunday) said,

"Once this legislation is signed into law by the president, the Department of Defense will immediately proceed with the planning necessary to carry out this change carefully and methodically, but purposefully".

The legislation specifies that the repeal will take effect only after Gates, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Obama certify that new policies and regulations to implement it are "consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion and retention of the armed forces," the secretary noted.

"As I have stated before, I will approach this process deliberately and will make such certification only after careful consultation with the military service chiefs and our combatant commanders and when I am satisfied that those conditions have been met for all the services, commands and units," Gates said.

Mullen said he looks forward to working with Gates and the service chiefs and said he's "committed to making sure that process is well-led, maintains our combat readiness and upholds our high standards."

In the meantime, Gates said it's important that the men and women in uniform understand that, although today's vote means the policy will change, the implementation and certification process will take time. "In the meantime, the current law and policy will remain in effect," he said.

"Successful implementation will depend upon strong leadership, a clear message and proactive education throughout the force," he said. "With a continued and sustained commitment to core values of leadership, professionalism and respect for all, I am convinced that the U.S. military can successfully accommodate and implement this change, as it has others in history."

Mullen welcomed legislative over judicial repeal of the law, noting that it "preserves the military's prerogative to implement change in a responsible, deliberate manner."

He echoed Obama's conviction that repealing the policy is "the right thing to do."

"No longer will able men and women who want to serve and sacrifice for their country have to sacrifice their integrity to do so," the chairman said. "We will be a better military as a result".

Full text of Defense Department statement, click here. 12/19/2010

GAY MILITARY PERSONNEL FIRED DURING "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" FILE SUIT / ASK FOR REINSTATEMENT

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Three gay men who were dismissed from the military because they were gay, have filed a lawsuit in a San Francisco federal court claiming their constitutional rights have been violated. The filing today from Michael Almy, Anthony Loverde and Jason Knight, claim their rights to due process of the law, equal protection, and free speech were ignored. The trio asks that their dismissal from the military be reversed, that all three be re-instated to service with time served credited their retirement. Though not contained in their complaint, if the court reverses the military's dismissal, all would likely be eligible for back pay. Full text of court filing, click here. 12/13/2010

SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR WAL-MART SEX DISCRIMINATION CASE / LARGEST CLASS ACTION SEX DISCRIMINATION SUIT TO REACH THE COURT

More in this article from the Washington Post, click here- 12/06/2010

HEALTH CARE REFORM OPPONENTS LOSE ANOTHER COURT BATTLE

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of health care reform, has been dismissed by a federal judge in Lynchburg, Virginia. The suit was filed by Liberty University, the Lynchburg private college founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. Federal Judge Norman Moon dismissed the suit, citing the federal government's right to regulate "interstate commerce". A similar lawsuit in Detroit was dismissed October 6th for same reason. However, opponents claim it's unconstitutional for the health reform law to require people to buy health insurance from commercial entities. Appeals are likely to take the issue to the U-S Supreme Court. Full text of actual decision from Federal Court Judge Norman Moon, click here. 12/01/2010

SPECULATORS, INVESTMENT BANKERS BUYING MORE LAWSUITS FROM PLAINTIFFS

More in this article from the New York Times, click here- 11/20/2010

VIDEO: LEGAL RIGHTS AND SERVICES FOR MIDDLE AND LOW INCOME FAMILIES, VETERANS AND THE HOMELESS - NOVEMBER 19 2010

NINTH CIRCUIT APPEALS COURT APPROVES CONTINUED HOLD ON REVERSAL OF "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL"

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 2-1 decision, has decided to block a lower court ruling which struck down the, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, involving gay members of the military. Federal attorneys successfully argued that the military needed more time for a transition to remove the policy rather than a sudden change, as mandated in the October 12th order by Federal Judge Virginia Phillips. In a statement released today, Defense Department officials said,

"President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Mike Mullen all have said they support repeal of the law by Congress. The Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, brought the case to court. A Defense Department review of the 1993 law is to be completed Dec. 1".

The appeals court stated, in its decision, "We are advised by the government that, in legal
terms, a precipitous implementation of the district court’s ruling will result in
“immediate harm” and “irreparable injury” to the military".

"The district court’s analysis and conclusions are arguably at odds with
the decisions of at least four other Circuit Courts of Appeal: the First, Second,
Case: 10-56634 11/01/2010 Page: 4 of 8 ID: 7530038 DktEntry: 24 5
Fourth, and Eighth. See Cook v Gates, 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008) (holding that §
654 does not violate constitutional substantive due process, the principle of equal
protection, or the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment); Able v. United
States, 155 F.3d at 631-36 (§ 654(b) does not violate the Constitution’s Equal
Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment); Richenberg v. Perry, 97 F.3d 256,
260-62 (8th Cir. 1996) (§ 654 does not violate the First Amendment or the Equal
Protection component of the Fifth Amendment); Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915,
927-31, 934 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (holding that § 654 does not violate any
provision in the Constitution). As we said in United States v. AMC Entertainment,
Inc., 549 F.3d 760 (9th Cir. 2008),

HOWEVER, the appeals court told the government it must hold off on dismissal of servicemembers who violate the policy. The decision read,

"If the administration is successful in persuading Congress to eliminate § 654, this case and controversy will become moot. Although our respected colleague in dissent agrees generally with the gist of our decision to grant this stay, he would allow the district court’s permanent injunction to remain in effect with respect only to the military’s authority to discharge any member who violates the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy while the
issues remain on appeal. In our view, this “carve out” is inconsistent with the stay itself and would be subject to the vagaries of the rule of unintended consequences. It could have the unfortunate effect of encouraging violations of § 654 in the interim, which, if the statute were ultimately to be found valid (an issue on which
we express no opinion), would leave the persons involved in a precarious position, because even Appellees admit that the government could resume discharges if the district court judgment is reversed".

Full text of actual court decision, click here. 11/02/2010

APPEALS COURT CHALLENGES BOTH SIDES IN ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW CASE

More from the Emeritus Newsroom-Attorneys for the federal government and the State of Arizona were grilled this morning before a three judge panel at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The hearing was held on the State of Arizona's appeal of a lower federal court ruling, which struck down Arizona Law 1070 allowing for on the spot immigration checks and detainment. Judges questioned Edwin Needler, US Assistant Solicitor General, about the government's position that immigration inquiries, according to the Arizona law 1070, were handled differently than an inquiry to the national criminal data base, to determine whether someone should be held or arrested. Needler argued, under Arizona Law 1070, a person could be held until their immigration status is confirmed, rather than a person being held if they have an outstanding warrant for their arrest as listed on the national criminal data bank. The federal government claims the law is written in a form so as to be discriminatory toward those, law enforcers BELIEVE to be, in violation of immigration laws. Needler added, it was the government's position this would be a violation of civil liberties. Needler asked the judges, "What would happen if every state in the union did this?" Needler says allowing states to have their own system of enforcing federal immigration laws could prove discriminatory. Arizona State Attorney John Bouma argued the state has to act to fix a broke a system and asked the appeals court to vacate the lower federal court order. Bouma said the state has the duty and constitutional authority granted by both the state and federal constitutions.

More from this article in the Arizona Republic, click here. 11/01/2010

TWO G-A-O REPORTS: UPDATE ON FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION OF SENIORS AND NEED FOR BETTER NURSING HOME OWNERSHIP INFORMATION

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Two G-A-O reports out this week provide updates on two issues critical to senior citizens in the U-S. While the Governmental Accountability Office was not able to prove that abuse of those disabled and the elderly was widespread, it did document abuse by family members and those appointed as guardians and the need to tighten screening and certification programs for guardians and caretakers. GAO identified hundreds of allegations of physical abuse, neglect and financial exploitation by guardians in 45 states and the District of Columbia between 1990 and 2010. In 20 selected closed cases, GAO found that guardians stole or otherwise improperly obtained $5.4 million in assets from 158 incapacitated victims, many of whom were seniors. In some instances, guardians also physically neglected and abused their victims. The guardians in these cases came from diverse professional backgrounds and were overseen by local courts in 15 states and the District of Columbia. GAO found several common themes. In 6 of 20 cases, the courts failed to adequately screen potential guardians, appointing individuals with criminal convictions or significant financial problems to manage high-dollar estates. In 12 of 20 cases, the courts failed to oversee guardians once they were appointed, allowing the abuse of vulnerable seniors and their assets to continue. Lastly, in 11 of 20 cases, courts and federal agencies did not communicate effectively or at all with each other about abusive guardians, allowing the guardian to continue the abuse of the victim and/or others. Using two fictitious identities--one with bad credit and one with the Social Security number of a deceased person--GAO obtained guardianship certification or met certification requirements in the four states where we applied: Illinois, Nevada, New York, and North Carolina. Though certification is intended to provide assurance that guardians are qualified to fulfill their role, none of the courts or certification organizations utilized by these states checked the credit history or validated the Social Security number of the fictitious applicants. An individual who is financially overextended is at a higher risk of engaging in illegal acts to generate funds. In addition, people with criminal convictions could easily conceal their pasts by stealing a deceased person's identity. The tests raise questions about the effectiveness of these four state certification programs.

Also out this week was another report reviewed data available to the public about nursing home ownership. The GAO found that 1,876 unique nursing homes were acquired by PI firms from 1998 through 2008. While some of the acquisitions involved entire nursing home chains, which included both the operations and any owned real estate, other acquisitions involved only the real estate. Sometimes the same nursing homes were acquired more than once. Ten PI firms accounted for 89 percent of the 1,876 unique nursing homes acquired by PI firms during this period. Of the six PI firms from which GAO collected information, those that acquired a chain reported being more involved in nursing home operations than those that only acquired the real estate. These firms had representatives on the nursing home chain's board of directors, but they generally characterized their involvement as related to the chain's strategic direction rather than day-to-day operations. PI firms that acquired real estate only had no representation on the boards of the operating companies, but officials at one PI firm observed that some leasing arrangements have the potential to affect operations. PECOS provided a confusing picture of the complex ownership structures and chain affiliations of the six PI-owned nursing home chains GAO reviewed. The database did not provide any indication of the hierarchy or relationships among the numerous organizational owners listed for PI-owned nursing homes. Further, PI ownership was often not readily apparent in the data, which could be the result of (1) PI firms not being required to be reported because of how they structured their acquisitions, (2) provider confusion about the reporting requirements, or (3) related entities that were reported but were not easily identifiable with the PI firms. Finally, PECOS chain information was not straightforward and was sometimes incomplete, making it difficult to link all the homes in a chain. Compounding these shortcomings, CMS's ability to determine the accuracy and completeness of the reported ownership data is limited. HHS has made limited use of PECOS ownership data. The only CMS division with routine access to PECOS data has been largely focused on populating the database and has not developed any standardized reports on nursing home ownership that it could share with interested parties. Some states collect their own ownership information but it can be limited to owners that operate in their state. As a result, tracking compliance problems among commonly owned homes or multi state chains can be ad hoc. State officials and others expressed interest in nationwide ownership data, such as PECOS, to improve nursing home oversight. Recognizing the growing interest in PECOS data, CMS has established a workgroup to consider how to accommodate the PECOS interests of other groups within the agency and is considering whether and how to provide access to external parties such as states. The implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides CMS with an opportunity to address shortcomings in the current PECOS database and to make ownership information available to states and consumers in a more intelligible way. GAO recommends that the Secretary of HHS and CMS Administrator consider requiring the reporting of certain information to make nursing home ownership structures more understandable and take other actions to improve the accuracy and dissemination of these data as HHS implements new ownership reporting requirements in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. HHS concurred with all of GAO's recommendations.

Summary and full report on Abuse of elderly and disabled, click here. Summary and full report on public data on nursing home ownership, click here. 10/29/2010

Copyright 2012 © Emeritus News and emeritusnews.com Click here to return to top of page

ADVOCACY-LEGAL DIRECTORY BELOW VIDEOS

84 YEAR OLD WISCONSIN WOMAN AND ACLU SUE THE STATE OVER NEW VOTER REGISTRATION LAW / SHE HAS NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE (4 MINUTES)

MUST SEE VIDEO: ACLU TRACKS DOWNSIDE OF OPPRESSIVE IMMIGRATION LAWS IN ALABAMA

ACTIVISTS PUSH RIGHT TO LEGAL COUNSEL IN CIVIL RIGHTS CASES - VOICE OF AMERICA REPORT (3 MINUTES)

PBS TO SHOW DOCUMENTARY ON THE HISTORY OF THE DISABILITY RIGHTS MOVEMENT - PREVIEW OF OCT. 27 SHOW

Watch Like an Emancipation Proclamation for the Disabled on PBS. See more from Independent Lens. 

OHIO LEGISLATOR PROPOSES DRUG TESTING PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN RESPONSE TO DRUG TEST FOR WELFARE AND UNEMPLOYMENT RECIPIENTS - INTERVIEW ON RACHEL MADDOW SHOW (6 MINUTES)- 10/20/2011

FLOOD GATES OPEN FOR GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AND MILITARY RECORDS - MUST SEE VIDEOS FROM PENTAGON CHANNEL AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

END OF "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" - VOICE OF AMERICA STORY (3 MINUTES) SEPTEMBER 20 2011

NUCLEAR WASTE WHISLEBLOWER WINS PROTECTION AGAINST EMPLOYER WHO FIRED HIM

More in this article from the LA Times- click here

Actual Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Report on case, click here

DEFENDING A POOR AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD FROM INDUSTRIAL AIR POLLUTION

WHY THE 40 YEAR OLD WAR ON DRUGS DOESN'T WORK - ACLU VIDEO BY ELTON JAMES WHITE - CAUTION CRUDE ADULT LANGUAGE

TRAINING ARMED FORCES FOR TRANSITION FROM "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" - PENTAGON CHANNEL REPORT - JUNE 3 2011

HOW IDENTITY THIEVES ARE STEALING KIDS SOCIAL SEC. NUMBERS

WHY PASS THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACT? - ACLU VIDEO

FEWER LAWYERS, MORE INTELLIGENT SOFTWARE

More in this article from the New York Times, click here

HOW TO HANDLE BEING STOPPED FOR IMMIGRATION STATUS - ACLU VIDEO - CAUTION: CRUDE ADULT LANGUAGE

UNDERSTAND WAIVERS OF DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS IN EMPLOYEE SEVERANCE AGREEMENTS / HOW TO FILE AN EEOC COMPLAINT

A must read from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, copy click here.

Expert testimony from EEOC meeting on 07/15/2009 regarding age discrimination, copy click here.

LATEST PRESS RELEASES ON EEOC DISCRIMINATION CASES, CLICK HERE

FAQ PAGE WHEN FILING A COMPLAINT WITH EEOC, CLICK HERE.

REACH THEM BY CLICKING ON THEIR WEB ADDRESSES BELOW

AARP-THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS

www.aarp.org

AMERICA'S PROMISE ALLIANCE (Dedicated to graduation in public schools)

http://www.americaspromise.org

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU)

http://www.aclu.org/

AMERICANS FOR FINANCIAL REFORM

/http://ourfinancialsecurity.org/

AMERICAN RIGHTS AT WORK

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT- STAFF INFORMATION CENTER

http://www.ada.gov/

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH

http://www.aei.org/

AGS FOUNDATION FOR HEALTH AND AGING

http://www.healthinaging.org/

ALLIANCE FOR AGING RESEARCH

http://www.agingresearch.org/

AMERICAN INDIAN LAW CENTER

http://lawschool.unm.edu/AILC/

THE ASPEN INSTITUTE

http://www.aspeninstitute.org/

BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/

BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE

http://www.businessroundtable.org/

CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/

CATO INSTITUTE

http://www.cato.org/

CENTER FOR ADVOCACY FOR RIGHTS OF THE ELDERLY

http://www.carie.org/

CENTER FOR AN AGING SOCIETY

http://ihcrp.georgetown.edu/agingsociety/

CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS

http://www.americanprogress.org/

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE

http://www.communitychange.org/

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

http://www.cdc.gov/

CENTER FOR EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY

http://cew.georgetown.edu/

CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/              

CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES-SHIP PROGRAM

Program to help seniors with insurance problems and questions

www.shiptalk.org

CENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY

www.medicareadvocacy.org

CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY PRIORITIES

http://www.cppp.org/

CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS

http://www.opensecrets.org/

CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

http://www.cspinet.org/

CENTER FOR URBAN POLICY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

http://www.policyinstitute.iu.edu/urban/

COMMITTEE TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE

http://www.ncpssm.org/       En Espanol

COMMON CAUSE

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4741359

COMMONWEALTH FUND

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/

CONSUMER WATCHDOG

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

http://www.cfr.org/

DEATH PENALTY INFORMATION CENTER

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS-DAV

http://www.dav.org/

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES FOR TECHONOLGY

http://www.draft.org/draft3/

ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE

http://www.epi.org/

ELDER JUSTICE COALITION

http://www.elderjusticecoalition.com/

FAIR ELECTIONS NOW

http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/

FAMILY CAREGIVER ALLIANCE

http://www.caregiver.org/caregiver/jsp/home.jsp

Families U-S-A

www.familiesusa.org

FOUNDATION AIDING THE ELDERLY-FATE

http://www.4fate.org/

THE GERONTOLOGIST

http://gerontologist.gerontologyjournals.org/

THE GRAY PANTHERS

http://www.graypanthers.org/

HERITAGE FOUNDATION

http://www.heritage.org/

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

http://www.hrw.org/

THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION

http://www.rwjf.org/

THE KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION

http://www.kff.org/

MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY-NURSING HOME EVALUATION DATABASE

http://www.memberofthefamily.net/usregistry.htm

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ELDERLY LAW ATTORNEYS

http://www.naela.org/

NATIONAL ACADEMY FOR STATE HEALTH POLICY

http://www.nashp.org/

NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AGING

http://www.nia.nih.gov/AboutNIA/NACA/

NATIONAL AGING IN PLACE COUNCIL

http://www.naipc.org/

NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC COUNCIL ON AGING

http://www.napca.org/

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR HOMECARE AND HOSPICE

http://www.healthfinder.gov/orgs/HR0465.htm

NATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT TEEN AND UNWANTED PREGNANCY

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/

NATIONAL CENTER FOR ASSISTED LIVING

http://www.ncal.org/

NATIONAL CENTER FOR ELDER ABUSE

http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/ncearoot/Main_Site/index.aspx

NATIONAL CENTER FOR SENIORS HOUSING RESEARCH

http://www.nahbrc.org/ 

NATIONAL CITIZENS COALITION FOR NURSING HOME REFORM

http://www.nccnhr.org/

NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION

http://www.ncrc.org/

NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER

http://www.consumerlaw.org/

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON AGING AND NCOA BENEFITS CHECK UP

http://www.ncoa.org/           http://www.benefitscheckup.org/

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT

http://www.nelp.org/

NATIONAL HISPANIC COUNCIL ON AGING

http://www.nhcoa.org/

NATIONAL INDIAN COUNCIL ON AGING

http://www.nicoa.org/

NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER

http://www.immigrantjustice.org

NATIONAL HEALTH LAW CENTER

http://www.healthlaw.org/

NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING

http://www.nia.nih.gov/

NATIONAL PEOPLES ACTION

http://www.npa-us.org/

NATIONAL SENIOR CITIZENS LAW CENTER

http://www.nsclc.org/

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

http://www.nrdc.org/

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION (Covers private pension plan failures)

http://www.pbgc.gov/

PEW RESEARCH CENTER

http://pewresearch.org/

PUBLIC AGENDA

http://www.publicagenda.org/

PUBLIC CITIZEN

http://www.citizen.org/

SELF REPRESENTED LITIGATION NETWORK

http://www.srln.org/

SERVICE MEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK

http://www.sldn.org/

THE URBAN INSTITUTE

http://www.urban.org/

U-S HOUSE COMMITTEES

• Committee on Agriculture
• Committee on Appropriations
• Committee on Armed Services
• Committee on the Budget
• Committee on Education and Labor
• Committee on Energy and Commerce
• Committee on Financial Services
• Committee on Foreign Affairs
• Committee on Homeland Security
• Committee on House Administration
• Committee on the Judiciary
• Committee on Natural Resources
• Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
• Committee on Rules
• Committee on Science and Technology
• Committee on Small Business
• Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
• Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
• Committee on Veterans' Affairs
• Committee on Ways and Means
• Joint Economic Committee
• Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies
• Joint Committee on Taxation
• House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
• House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming

U-S SENATE COMMITTEES

STANDING
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Appropriations
Armed Services
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Budget
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Energy and Natural Resources
Environment and Public Works
Finance
Foreign Relations
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Judiciary
Rules and Administration
Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Veterans' Affairs

SPECIAL SELECT AND OTHER
Indian Affairs
Select Committee on Ethics
Select Committee on Intelligence
Special Committee on Aging

JOINT HOUSE-SENATE
Joint Committee on Printing
Joint Committee on Taxation
Joint Committee on the Library
Joint Economic Committee

THAT'S MY CONGRESS (Lists of hearings and other proceedings of note)

http://thatsmycongress.com/index.php/2011

HISPANICS WORRY THEY, FAMILY MEMBERS OR FRIENDS WILL BE DEPORTED / FEEL INCREASING DISCRIMINATION

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Two thirds of Hispanics in the U-S say discrimination against them is increasing, blaming it on increased tensions over illegal immigrants. The Pew Hispanic Center survey found that 86% of those polled believe illegal immigrants should be allowed a pathway to citizenship that include passing background checks and paying a fine. Only 13% felt illegal immigrants should be deported.

More than six-in-ten (61%) Latinos say that discrimination against Hispanics is a "major problem," up from 54% who said that in 2007. Asked to state the most important factor leading to discrimination, a plurality of 36% now cites immigration status, up from a minority of 23% who said the same in 2007. Back then, a plurality of respondents-46%-identified language skills as the biggest cause of discrimination against Hispanics.

Of the more than 11 million illegal immigrants believed living in the U-S, 80% are estimated to be Hispanic. There are currently more than 47 million Hispanics living in the U-S, according to the survey.

Pew Hispanic Center press release, click here. 10/28/2010

FLORIDA OFFICIALS WILL NOT APPEAL COURT LOSS ON GAY ADOPTION BAN

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum says he will not appeal a September 22d ruling from the Florida Third District Court of Appeals, which struck down the state's ban on adoption by gay parents. The case involved a gay man, Martin Gill , attempting to adopt two boys, in 2004. The state denied his request due to his homosexuality. The denial and other such cases prompted the 2006 Florida Adoption Act, which prohibited adoptions by gays and lesbians. The two children had been placed with Gill after they were removed from their parents home due to abuse and neglect charges.

Gov. Charlie Christ said last month he was not in favor of an appeal. Now Attorney General McCollum's decision makes it official. McCollum, in a statement, said it was the view of the Department of Children and Families not to appeal. McCollum did not rule out future action to defend a gay adoption ban, adding, "No doubt someday a more suitable case will give the (Florida) Supreme Court the opportunity to uphold the constitutionality of this law".

Leslie Copper of The American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the ban, said, "The victory in Martin’s case means his two children will finally get to have the name Gill and fully feel like a family. Unfortunately this victory came too late for many of our other client’s families. A number of those children have already reached adulthood, getting through their entire childhoods without ever getting to be adopted. But their families’ stories have paved the way for so many other children. These parents represent the best of what we hope for for children in foster care—or any children. And the fact that these children had to go so long without the emotional security of being adopted is heartbreaking. Without these parents telling their stories, which embody what was so terribly wrong about the Florida law, we never could have reached this day. They did more than anyone to help change hearts and minds and convince people that this law is irrational and damaging to children".  Full text of ACLU article on Martin Gill. Full text of ACLU article on McCollum decision, click here.

Full text of Attorney General Bill McCollum statement, click here. Full Text of actual Florida appeals court decision, click here - 10/25/2010

TEXAS LIMITS USE OF DEATH PENALTY / TEXAS COURTS MUST NOW PROVE THREAT OF FUTURE DANGER

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has ruled that those convicts to be executed must be proven to be a "future danger". The ruling by the appeals court kept the death sentence of convicted triple murderer Billie Wayne Coble, but it did order that future executions must prove, "future danger". Coble and others sentenced to death in Texas, involved questionable or fraudulent forensic evidence, according to capital punishment foes. In Coble's case, testimony from forensic psychiatrist Dr. Richard Coons was used to convict Coble. Coble's first murder conviction with a death sentence was reversed on appeal and sent back to the trial court , which resulted in a second trial ending with another conviction and death sentence. While the appeals court refused to block Coble's execution, it did find methodology used by Dr. Coons as a basis for his testimony was, "not reliable", as to " future danger". The ruling did not change the outcome of the Coble case, but may affect others, where "future danger" has not been clearly established. Prosecutors argued Coble's danger to society was beyond question and not exclusively dependent on testimony from Dr. Coons.

Coble was convicted in 1990 and 2008 for the murders of his wife's mother, as well as her father and brother.

Full text of actual court decision from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, click here. ACLU story on court decision, click here. 10/25/2010

PRESIDENT OBAMA TAPES VIDEO URGING GAY AND LESBIAN TEENS TO LIVE LIFE AND FIGHT FOR JUSTICE

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- In an appeal to gay, lesbian and trans gender teens facing bullying and discrimination, President Obama called on them to seek help and help others. In a special video released by the White House today, the President told of his own problems dealing with bullying.

Obama said, "This is personal to me. When I was a young adult, I faced the jokes and taunting that too many of our youth face today, and I considered suicide as a way out.  But I was fortunate.  One of my co-workers recognized that I was hurting, and I soon confided in her.  She cared enough to push me to seek help.  She saved my life.  I will always be grateful for her compassion and support – the same compassion and support that so many kids need today". 

The President also used the occasion to boost three websites created to help those subjected to bullying due to sexual orientation or other issues. The three sites (click on underlined titles for access), It Gets Better Project, The Trevor Project and www.bullyinginfo.org, have been created to help youths in every American state and territory.

Obama's speech comes in the wake of numerous recent reported suicides among teens and young adults harassed over sexual orientation and other issues.

Direct link to Obama's video and text on White House web site, click here. 10/22/2010

CONFUSION CONTINUES OVER DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL / GAY RIGHTS GROUPS URGE GAY RECRUITS TO STAY CLEAR UNTIL SUPREME COURT RULING

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has granted the Defense Department a temporary stay of a lower court judge's ruling which ordered an end to the military's, "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, toward gay and lesbian service members. The appeals court ordered that both sides submit briefs to defend their positions by October 25th. The Defense Department had, only yesterday, ordered that recruiters accept openly gay prospects for military service. Gay rights groups have suggested that, until the issue is settled, it would be best for gays and lesbians to avoid signing up. The developments this week have added more confusion to what could happen if the 'Don't ask, don't tell" policy is not struck down by the U-S Supreme Court and policy enforcement returns. Pentagon statement on appeals court ruling, click here. Human Rights Campaign statement on appeals court decision, click here. 10/21/2010

APPEALS COURT HEARING ON ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW IS SCHEDULED

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- A hearing on the appeal of the Arizona immigration enforcement law has been scheduled for November first, by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. According to the court statement released today, the case involves the constitutionality of Arizona Senate Bill 1070, which requires state law enforcement officers to check a person's immigration status under certain circumstances, and authorizes a warrantless arrest where there is probable cause to believe that the person has committed an offense making him/her removable from the United States. The U.S. government, arguing that SB 1070 was preempted by federal statutes, sought a preliminary injunction to block enactment of the law. The preliminary injunction was granted in part and denied in part by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The State of Arizona and its governor have appealed, seeking to remove the injunction imposed by the district court on certain portions of SB 1070. Other provisions of the law not subject to the injunction went into effect July 29, 2010. Press release from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, click here. 10/20/2010

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FILES APPEAL OF JUDGE'S ORDER TO END "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL"

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- As the Obama administration tries to bring an end to the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy involving gay service members, the Justice Department followed through on an appeal of Judge Virginia Phillips order to immediately cease enforcement. The administration claims it needs time to phase out of "Don't ask, don't tell", and today filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The administration wants to take the court case, filed by the Log Cabin Republicans, to its official legal end, as it tries to phase out the policy. However, in its appeal filing, federal attorneys stated Judge Phillips overstepped her authority in ordering an immediate end, claiming the order, "risks causing significant immediate harm to the military and its efforts
to be prepared to implement an orderly repeal of the statute". (See link to actual filing below)

Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU said of the recent court developments,

“Opening up our military to openly gay and lesbian Americans is the right thing to do and is long overdue. But, as long as the court order remains vulnerable to appeal, this unconstitutional policy still has life in it and the potential to discriminate against gay and lesbian service members. “It is time for President Obama to lead by putting a decisive end to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,' and he should seize this opportunity by making clear that he will not take any further steps to try to reinstate this discriminatory policy".

ACLU statement, click here. Actual Justice Department appeal filing to Ninth Circuit Court, click here. 10/20/2010

PENTAGON ANNOUNCES IT WILL RECRUIT GAYS, GAY LEADERS SKEPTICAL

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- After a federal court judge refused to delay the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", the Pentagon has announced that recruiters will accept openly gay and lesbian individuals for military service. The announcement also stipulates that could change if the policy returns following the continuing court battle. Federal Court Judge Virginia Phillips ordered an end to the policy earlier this month after concluding last month, that the policy violated gay service members constitutional rights ( See decision in October 12 2010 story below) . A statement from the Defense Department said,

The department issued guidance Oct. 15 to process paperwork for openly gay men or lesbian applicants. The instructions come from a California federal judge’s decision that the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law is unconstitutional.

On Oct. 12, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips enjoined DOD “immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation or other proceeding that may have commenced under the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Act or its implementing regulations.”

Pentagon officials said the department will abide by the judge’s order, and that part of that compliance is allowing openly gay people to apply to join the military. Citing uncertainty over final disposition of the matter in the courts and on Capitol Hill, a DOD spokeswoman said potential applicants must be aware that the situation may change.

“Recruiters are reminded to set the applicants’ expectations by informing them that a reversal in the court’s decision of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law/policy may occur,” Cynthia Smith said.

Following the announcement, leaders in the gay and lesbian communities urged caution for those considering enlisting for military service, cautioning that the transitional period could be trickier than the period before the court order. The largest of the gay and lesbian civil rights groups, the Human Rights Campaign, issued the following statement following Judge Phillips refusal to delay the end of Don't ask, don't tell".

“Judge Phillips once again did the right thing for our national security. We call on the administration not to appeal her decision", said President Joe Solmonese. "DADT is an unconscionable law that forces brave lesbian and gay Americans to serve in silence and has forced 14,000 patriotic Americans out of the military. The law is detrimental, not only to our national security, but also to the core American value of fairness”.

President Obama says he will end "Don't ask, don't tell", but government attorneys say they will see the case to its legal end in an effort to settle the issue in the courts. Justice Department officials will appeal Judge Phillips decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Full text of Human Rights Campaign statement, click here. Full text of Pentagon statement, click here. 10/20/2010

COUNTRYWIDE CO-FOUNDER MAZILO SETTLES FOR $67.5 MILLION FINE FOR FRAUDULENT DEALINGS

More from CNN, click here- 10/15/2010

FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS IMMEDIATE END TO "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" RULES FOR THE MILITARY

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- As expected, based on her decision last month, Federal Judge Virginia Phillips ordered the Defense Department to bring an immediate end to "Don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays and lesbians in the military. In her conclusion, Judge Phillips left little doubt about her orders, despite some confusion among experts as to exactly what effects her order will have on previous cases where members of the military were forced out due to sexual orientation. Judge Phillips wrote that her order:

(1) DECLARES that the act known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"1 infringes
the fundamental rights of United States service members and prospective
service members and violates (a) the substantive due process rights
guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and
(b) the rights to freedom of speech and to petition the Government for redress
of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
(2) PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants United States of America
and the Secretary of Defense, their agents, servants, officers, employees,
and attorneys, and all persons acting in participation or concert with them or
under their direction or command, from enforcing or applying the "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell" Act and implementing regulations, against any person under their
jurisdiction or command;
(3) ORDERS Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of
Defense immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or
discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced
under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Act, or pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 654 or its
implementing regulations, on or prior to the date of this Judgment.
(4) GRANTS Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans' request to apply for
attorneys' fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act.

The Log Cabin Republicans brought the lawsuit against Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the U-S government, claiming the policy violated the constitutional rights of service members who were gay.

Full text of actual court decision, click here. 10/12/2010

REPORT CLAIMS STATES TURNING JAILS INTO DEBTORS PRISONS FOR INDIGENT DEFENDANTS WHO CAN'T PAY PENALTIES AND COURT COSTS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- A report from the Brennan Center of the New York University School of Law paints a no-win picture for indigent defendants trying to dig themselves out of the criminal justice system. The fees, sometimes, include the costs of attorneys for indigent defendants. In a review of 15 states the authors of the report found:

"All fifteen states charge a broad array of fees, which are often imposed without taking into account ability to pay. One person in Pennsylvania faced $2,464 in fees alone, approximately three times the amount imposed for fines and restitution. In some states, local government fees, on top of state-wide fees, add to fee burdens. Thirteen of the fifteen states also charge poor people public defender fees simply for exercising their constitutional right to counsel. This practice can push defendants to waive counsel, raising constitutional questions and leading to wrongful convictions, over-incarceration, and significant burdens on the operation of the courts".

"Fourteen of the fifteen states also utilize “poverty penalties” – piling on additional late fees, payment plan fees, and interest when individuals are unable to pay their debts all at once, often enriching private debt collectors in the process. Some of the collection fees are exorbitant and exceed ordinary standards of fairness. For example, Alabama charges a 30 percent collection fee, while Florida permits private debt collectors to tack on a 40 percent surcharge to underlying debt".

The American Civil Liberties Union also released a report on the problem, citing several cases. In most of these cases, taxpayers spent more money incarcerating the individuals than was owed. Two cases from Ohio are among those cited by the group as a violation of state and federal constitutional rights.

" Howard Webb, who was thrown in jail no fewer than four times over a six-year period for failing to pay $2,882.36 in LFOs assessed for various criminal and traffic offenses. During these years, Mr. Webb, a dishwasher earning $7 per hour, entered into several payment plans, made some payments, signed up for community service, and also wrote numerous letters to the court asking for early release so that he could keep his employment and make payments. The court denied all his requests, noting that it would only release him “if the court receives all the money he owes.” In all, Mr. Webb served 330 days in jail. Had the judge followed state law requiring that Mr. Webb be credited for $50 a day toward his LFO debt for each day he was incarcerated, his time in jail would have covered $16,500 in fines—more than five times what he owed in LFOs. We also profile Yolanda Twitty, who was assessed $251 in fines and costs for unauthorized use of property, a fourth-degree misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of 30 days. Ms. Twitty was arrested four different times when she was unable to pay her LFOs. She served a total of 35 days in jail without receiving any credit toward her debt, five days longer than the maximum sentence she could have received for her underlying offense".

In addition, some courts are requiring indigent defendants to pay for their court appointed attorneys upon release from prison.

Full text of Brennan Center report, click here. Full text of ACLU report, click here. 10/06/2010

INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT SAYS FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION FAILED TO CRACK DOWN ON REPEAT OFFENDERS / PROBE ORDERED AFTER LOSS OF 29 MINERS IN W-VA

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Mine safety critics had already accused some mining companies of ignoring miner safety for profits. This week, a report released from the Inspector General's Office at the U-S Department of Labor, gave more evidence to support the critics. The IG's report claims a lack of leadership, at the Mine Safety and Health Administration in Washington, allowed repeat offenders to continue violating federal and state mining laws.

The report claims that, of the 68 mines that received potential POV notification letters, from 2007-2009, District Managers recommended that 9 be given a POV notice after completing the evaluation period. However, for a variety of reasons, MSHA did not enforce its POV authority against any of these mines.

In order to remove financial considerations from established mine safety rules, the IG probe suggested:

That violation criteria are sufficiently transparent to allow stakeholders to reasonably determine an individual mine’s status at any point in time.

Assure that POV decisions are based solely on the health and safety conditions at each mine.

Critics of operations at the Upper Branch Mine in West Virginia had claimed the mine repeatedly violated health and safety codes, such as accumulation of gas fumes, which were routinely un enforced by the Mine Safety and Health Administration despite the recommendations of some of the inspectors at the site. An explosion and fire at the mine on April 5th, killed 29 miners. Gas fumes are believed the cause of the disaster at the mine, which is owned by Massey Energy.

Full text of Inspector General Report, click here. 09/30/2010

APPEALS COURT GIVES OBAMA VICTORY TO RESTORE STEM CELL RESEARCH

More in this article from Voice of America, click here- 09/29/2010

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON PROPOSED RULE TO MONITOR ALL MONEY TRANSFERS IN THE U-S

More in this article and audio report from NPR, click here- 09/29/2010

FLA. GAY ADOPTION BAN "UNCONSTITUTIONAL", GOV. CHRIST SAYS HE WON'T APPEAL

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Gov. Charlie Christ says the state will not appeal the yesterday's ruling from a Florida state appeals court in Miami, which upheld a lower court ruling removing the state's ban on adoptions by gay parents. The Florida Third District Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court ruling that prohibition of adoption by gay parents was a violation of equal protection under the state's constitution. The case involved a gay man who, in 2004, attempted to adopt two boys. The state denied his request due to his homosexuality. The denial and other such cases prompted the 2006 Florida Adoption Act, which prohibited adoptions by gays and lesbians. The two children had been placed with the gay man after they were removed from their parents home due to abuse and neglect charges.

Gov. Christ has come under fire from conservatives for his recently announced position that he supports gay rights, except those for marriage. His announcement that the state would not appeal is likely to be more fodder for conservatives who forced him from Republican ranks to that of an independent, in his run for the Senate. Full Text of actual Florida appeals court decision, click here. 09/23/2010

MUSLIM WORKERS MAKE UP RECORD NUMBER OF JOB DISCRIMINATION CASES

More in this article from the New York Times, click here- 09/23/2010

YOUR PRIVACY COMPUTER SETTINGS ARE NOT AS PRIVATE AS YOU THINK

More in this article from the New York Times, click here- 09/21/2010

TOYOTA MAKES SETTLEMENT WITH FAMILY KILLED IN ACCELERATION CASE / WRONG SIZE FLOOR MAT USED IN LOANER CAR

More in this article from the Washington Post, click here- 09/18/2010

FEDERAL JUDGE STRIKES DOWN "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" MILITARY POLICY

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- California Federal Central District Court Judge Virginia Phillips has ruled in favor of those challenging the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy enforced in the military against gay and lesbian service members. Judge Phillips agreed the policy violates the first and fifth amendments of the U-S Constitution. The suit was filed by the Log Cabin Republicans, gay members of the Republican Party who opposed enforcement of the policy since it was established in 1993. In her opinion handed down late yesterday, Judge Phillips wrote:

".....the sweeping reach of the restrictions on speech in the Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Act is far broader than is reasonably necessary to protect the substantial
government interest at stake here. In Brown, the Supreme Court upheld an
Air Force regulation that required Air Force personnel first to obtain
permission from the base commander before distributing or posting petitions
on Air Force bases, 444 U.S. at 348; in Greer, the Court upheld a similar
regulation on Army bases, banning speeches, demonstrations, and
distribution of literature, without prior approval from post headquarters. 424
U.S. at 828. In both cases, the Court rejected facial challenges to the
regulations, holding they protected substantial Governmental interests
unrelated to the suppression of free expression, i.e., maintaining the respect
for duty and discipline, and restricted speech no more than was reasonably
necessary to protect that interest".

"In other words, all of these examples demonstrate that the Act's
restrictions on speech not only are broader than reasonably necessary to
protect the Government's substantial interests, but also actually serve to
impede military readiness and unit cohesion rather than further these goals".

Full text of actual court decision, click here. 09/10/2010

THIRD U-S CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS STRIKES DOWN LOCAL IMMIGRATION LAWS IN HAZELTON, PENNSYVANIA

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Hazelton, Pennsylvania, which passed local laws in 2006 banning illegal immigration, suffered another defeat in federal court yesterday. The Third Circuit U-S Court of Appeals in Philadelphia upheld a lower court decision that the city cannot enforce actions against businesses and landlords who do business or rent to illegal immigrants. The city's actions had been used as a model for other communities which have passed laws punishing employers and others who have been blamed for supporting illegal immigration. As to the housing provisions of the Hazelton laws, the court found:

"(The laws) "effectively prohibit residency
based on immigration status that is so clearly within the
exclusive domain of the federal government.
In sum, we find the housing provisions of Hazleton’s
ordinances pre-empted regulations of immigration, and both
field and conflict pre-empted by the INA.

For the reasons set forth above, we affirm in part and
reverse in part the district court’s order permanently enjoining
Hazleton’s enforcement of the IIRAO and the RO".

As to the business provisions of the Hazelton laws, the court said,

"It is, of course, not our job to sit in judgment of whether
state and local frustration about federal immigration policy is
warranted. We are, however, required to intervene when states
and localities directly undermine the federal objectives
embodied in statutes enacted by Congress. The employment
provisions of the IIRAO “stand as an obstacle to the
accomplishment and execution” of IRCA’s objectives, Hines,
312 U.S. at 67, and thus are pre-empted".

Full text of actual court of appeals decision, click here. 09/10/2010

PEW STUDY SAYS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION DOWN

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Illegal immigration has dropped sharply since 2005. A report released today from the Pew Hispanic Center says much of that is due to the drop in illegal immigration from Latin American nations other than Mexico.

The annual inflow of unauthorized immigrants to the United States was nearly two-thirds smaller in the March 2007 to March 2009 period than it had been from March 2000 to March 2005, according to new estimates by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.

This sharp decline has contributed to an overall reduction of 8% in the number of unauthorized immigrants currently living in the U.S. -- to 11.1 million in March 2009 from a peak of 12 million in March 2007, according to the estimates. The decrease represents the first significant reversal in the growth of this population over the past two decades.

The Pew Hispanic Center's analysis also finds that the most marked decline in the population of unauthorized immigrants has been among those who come from Latin American countries other than Mexico. From 2007 to 2009, the size of this group from the Caribbean, Central America and South America decreased 22%.

By contrast, the Mexican unauthorized population (which accounts for about 60% of all unauthorized immigrants) peaked in 2007 at 7 million and has since leveled off. The number of unauthorized immigrants from the rest of the world did not change.

Even though the size of the Mexican unauthorized population living in the United States has not changed significantly since 2007, the inflows from that country have fallen off sharply in recent years.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center's estimates, an average of 150,000 unauthorized immigrants from Mexico arrived annually during the March 2007 to March 2009 period -- 70% below the annual average of 500,000 that prevailed during the first half of the decade.

Also,

• In 2009, 59% of unauthorized immigrants resided in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and New Jersey. However, the share living in those states has declined from 80% in 1990, as unauthorized immigrants have dispersed to new settlement areas.
• Unauthorized immigrants accounted for 28% of the nation's foreign-born population in 2009, a decline from 31% in 2007.
• Nearly half of unauthorized immigrants living in the country in 2009 -- 47%, or 5.2 million people -- arrived in 2000 or later.
• The number of male unauthorized immigrants peaked in 2007 at 6.3 million and declined to 5.8 million in 2009. The number of female unauthorized immigrants, 4.2 million in 2009, is roughly the same as it was in 2007.
• The number of children who are unauthorized, 1.1 million in 2009, declined slightly over the decade. By contrast, the population of U.S.-born children with at least one unauthorized parent nearly doubled from 2000 to 2009, when they numbered 4 million.
• There were 7.8 million unauthorized immigrants in the labor force in 2009, or 5.1% of the total. The size of the unauthorized labor force peaked in 2007 and declined in both 2008 and 2009. There were 7 million unauthorized immigrants employed in March 2009.

Pew Hispanic Center press release, copy click here. 09/01/2010

IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT CHANGES TARGET CRIMINALS AND SECURITY RISKS / SOME CASES AGAINST NO-RISK OFFENDERS BEING DROPPED

More in this article in the Houston Chronicle, click here- 08/27/2010

COURT ORDER HALTS FED FUNDED STEM CELL RESEARCH / DOES NOT AFFECT PRIVATELY FUNDED STEM CELL RESEARCH

More in this article from the New York Times, click here- Full text of actual decision from US District Court for District of Columbia, click here - 08/23/2010

ISSUE UPDATE: THE DEBATE OVER 3D PARTY USE OF YOUR INTERNET SITE TRACKING INFO

YouTube video of story from Voice of America, click here. 08/21/2010

A-D-A REVIEW FINDS DISABLED MAKING LITTLE PROGRESS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- A status review of the lives of disabled Americans finds , although there has been substantial improvement reported in education attainment and political participation since 1986, discrimination in employment and financial independence continues with few improvements. The review examining 20 years since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, claims large gaps still exist between people with and without disabilities with regard to: employment, household income, access to transportation, health care, socializing, going to restaurants, and satisfaction with life . And according to the review, "....in some instances, the spread has actually gotten worse since the inception of the survey in 1986".

The darker assessment of the lives of the disabled is primarily traced to a declining economy over a 5 to 6 year period. The survey also adds other factors.

"Since this survey was last conducted in 2004, America has undergone a significant economic downturn. Some areas measured in the survey, such as employment, poverty, and going to restaurants were negatively impacted by the state of the economy. However, the consistency of the size of the gaps this year suggests that people with disabilities and without disabilities were affected as much, or more, by the recession. In addition to the gap measures that have been included in this and previous research, the survey includes an expanded section on employment, and selected questions on financial independence. These items add further texture to the disadvantages faced by people with disabilities and point to the potential of accommodations and programs that can be designed to facilitate and improve the employment outcomes of more people with disabilities.
There have been some improvements measured over the years that may be in part attributable to the implementation of the ADA of 1990. However, there is clearly much work to be done in order to narrow the very substantial gaps that still exist. Hopefully policymakers, employers, and the disability community will work together to translate these findings into actions and policies that will improve the lives of the millions of Americans with disabilities in the future".

 Among all working-age (18-64) people with disabilities, only 21% say that they are employed full or part-time, compared to 59% of working-age people without disabilities – a gap of 38 percentage points.
 This gap has been decreasing since 1998, but it still remains large and its decline has been slow (gap in 1998: 50 points; 2000: 49 points; 2004: 43 points).
 People with disabilities who are not employed describe themselves as unemployed but looking for work (14%), unemployed and not looking for work (14%), retired (14%), a stay-at-home spouse or partner (7%), or something else (29%).
 Among those with disabilities who describe themselves as unemployed, 73% cite their disability as one of the reasons why they are not working right now. Other reasons for unemployment include being unable to find a job in their line of work (cited by 56%) and being unable to get the accommodations needed to effectively perform in the workplace.

Also considered, is public and human perception the disabled experience from their contact with others.

"A majority of people with disabilities say they are treated the same as others when people learn that they have a disability or health problem. However, a considerable minority have experienced a negative reaction.
 Around three-quarters (72%) say they are treated the same as others when people learn they have a disability and half (50%) report that people are surprised to find out about their disability. On the other hand, 28% report that people generally act as if they are sorry for the person with a disability, 27% say they are treated differently and 14% say people tend to avoid further contact with them.
 People with more severe disabilities are much more likely to describe negative experiences when asked how people generally react toward them: half (49%) of people with somewhat or very severe disabilities describe negative experiences, compared to 29% of those with slight or moderate disabilities".

Full text of ADA report, click here. 08/12/2010

TWO MORE HIGH PROFILE "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" MILITARY FIRINGS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Court challenges could end the, "Don't ask, don't tell", military policy regarding gay service members, before President Obama and Congress repeal it. Two notable cases involving military officers this week, have brought more high profile media attention to the legal battle.

Media reports this week have focused on the cases of two recently fired officers. One of them has filed a lawsuit in an Idaho federal court.

Air Force Lt. Col Victor Fehrenbach was reprimanded and reduced to desk duty for allegedly being gay and assaulting a civilian. The assault charge was dropped for lack of evidence, with the charge of being gay remaining. The military decided to discharge Fehrenbach, which he is challenging in the court filing. Ferhrenbach never admitted publicly being gay, however he did admit his sexual orientation to Idaho investigators which was being observed by military investigators, without his knowledge. Despite the assault charge being dropped, the military continued their "Don't ask, don't tell" case with the testimony of the civilian accuser. Fehrenbach may avoid the courtroom as Air Force officials are reviewing his case.

Another high profile case is that of Army Captain Jonathan Hopkins. Fourth in his class as a graduate of West Point, Hopkins was also a decorated veteran for his tours of duty commanding forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was dismissed this week. During an interview last night on the MSNBC program, "Rachel Maddow Show", Hopkins said he was notified of the charge against him on the same day he was told of his eligibility for a promotion.

Video of Hopkins interview with MSNBC'S Rachel Maddow, click here. Press release on Fehrenbach case from the Service Members Legal Defense Network, click here. Service Members Legal Defense Network home page, click here. 08/12/2010

RED LIGHT CAMERAS FACE MOUNTING PUBLIC OUTRAGE

More in this article from the New York Times, click here- 08/08/2010

 KAGAN CONFIRMED AS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Supreme Court Justice Nominee Elena Kagan was confirmed by the U-S Senate today, by a vote of 63-37 with five Republicans (Collins ME, Graham SC, Gregg NH, Lugar IN, Snowe ME), joining all but one Democrat (Sen. Ben Nelson NE). Kagan takes the seat of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, considered one of the more liberal members of the court, who was nominated by former President Gerald Ford in 1975. CSPAN bio video on Kagan, click here. Vote score sheet, voting and hearing videos, click here. 08/05/2010

GAY MARRIAGE BAN OVERTURNED IN CALIFORNIA

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Less than two years after 52% of California voters approved a law banning gay marriage, a federal court has overturned it. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, in a 136 page ruling, found the California law, passed in November 2008 as Proposition 8, violated Equal Protection and and Due Process, and failed to prove why gay marriage should not be granted the same rights as marriage between heterosexual couples. Judge Walker, appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987. Due to delays, Walker did not take the bench until 1989 under President George HW Bush. Reports in February from the San Francisco Chronicle claim Walker is gay, but those who know him say he is not a judge with a liberal agenda. During an interview today on CNN, David Gergen, former presidential advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton, told host Wolf Blitzer, that Walker, was "... not a lefty from the left coast", explaining that Walker has a solid reputation for thorough consideration of constitutional arguments.

The case now heads to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then the U.S. Supreme Court. Because California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger opposed the gay marriage ban, they refused to defend it in court, leaving it up to Project Marriage, which succeeded placing the gay marriage ban on the California ballot and winning a close vote. Advocates say Walker's ruling stands a good chance of being upheld in the appeals court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Another historic note about this case is that former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, appointed under President George W. Bush, teamed up with David Boies to defeat the gay marriage ban. Olson and Boies had faced off against each other in the landmark Bush v. Gore U. S Supreme Court case which determined the 2000 presidential election. Scribd copy of order from Judge Walker (136 pages), click here. 08/04/2010

FEDERAL JUDGE CLEARS BENEFITS FOR GAY SPOUSES IN GAY MARRIAGE STATES

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- A federal judge in Boston issued a clear signal that federal benefits cannot be limited to heterosexual marriages in states where gay marriages are legal. The ruling could also serve as a precedent for state and local government benefits in those states where gay marriage is legal. The ruling, from Judge Joseph L. Tauro, strikes down The Defense of Marriage Act in gay marriage states lifting limits for spouses of gay federal employees. In the ruling, Tauro stated,

"There can be no dispute that the subject of domestic relations is the exclusive province of
the states.119 And the powers to establish eligibility requirements for marriage, as well as to issue
determinations of martial status, lie at the very core of such domestic relations law.120 The
government therefore concedes, as it must, that Congress does not have the authority to place
restrictions on the states’ power to issue marriage licenses. And indeed, as the government aptly
points out, DOMA refrains from directly doing so. Nonetheless, the government’s argument
assumes that Congress has some interest in a uniform definition of marriage for purposes of
determining federal rights, benefits, and privileges. There is no such interest".

The government had claimed, that due to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, federal benefits were limited to families of heterosexual spouses. In 1996, Congress enacted, and President Clinton signed into law, the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”). At issue in this case is Section 3 of DOMA, which defines the terms “marriage” and “spouse,” for purposes of federal law, to include only the union of one man and one woman. In particular, it provides that:

Judge Tauro, in his historical background on the law, said the DOMA set the meaning of the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.

But Judge Tauro denied the governments claims and ordered that the plaintiffs in the case, gay federal employees and their partners/spouses be allowed federal benefits in states where gay marriages are legal.

"The states alone have the authority to set forth eligibility requirements as to familial relationships and the federal government cannot, therefore, have a legitimate interest in disregarding those family
status determinations properly made by the states". Direct link to Judge Tauro's decision, click here. 07/09/2010

FEDERAL JUDGE WHO STRUCK DOWN GULF DRILLING MORATORIUM SOLD EXXON-MOBIL STOCK THE DAY OF HIS DECISION

More from the Washington Post, click here- 06/25/2010

G-A-O PRELIMINARY REPORT CLEARS NOW DEFUNCT "ACORN" OF WRONGDOING / AGENCY ALSO SAYS EPA WILL BE OVER BUDGET WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUPS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- After being hounded by detractors over alleged wrongdoing, mainly from conservative groups, the GAO has issued a preliminary report, clearing ACORN, the anti poverty, voter registration non-profit, which was driven out of existence. An article, written by an attorney who wrote a book about the organization, claims the preliminary report was released on June 14th, "vindicating" the organization. More in this article by John Atlas in AlterNet, click here.

ALSO, THE G-A-O CLAIMS that the E-P-A is going to come up short on money for environmental cleanups. The agency's report says,

"Over 60 percent of the 75 nonfederal NPL sites with unacceptable human exposure have all or more than half of the work remaining to complete remedial construction. According to EPA regional officials' responses to our survey, EPA has plans to control human exposure at all of the 75 sites with unacceptable human exposure; however, our survey results also show that EPA regional officials expect 41 of the sites to continue to have unacceptable exposure until fiscal year 2015 or later".

The totality of the problem is made more sobering by the financial shortcomings of the so called, "Superfund" money for cleanup.

The G-A-O claims, "EPA regional officials' cost estimates for remedial construction for the next 2 years--fiscal years 2011 and 2012--are $253 million to $414 million greater than the $267 million in annual funding that EPA allocated for remedial actions in fiscal year 2009. From fiscal years 2000 through 2009, EPA allocated $220 million to $267 million in ann border.
-- To enhance the rule of law.
-- And to protect Arizonans and Americans from violence committed by terrorists, organized crime syndicates, drug cartels and common criminals.
Make no mistake: The responsibility to ensure that we have an orderly, secure border – not just some imaginary line in the dirt or a rickety fence – belongs to the federal government.
They have failed.
And we, in Arizona, have for too long paid the price for those failures.
This failure has hurt our economy, stifled trade and legal travel, and pitted neighbor against neighbor".

Brewer signed the bill amid a recent populist fury over the killing of a rancher near the Mexican border, and increasing pressure from rank and file law enforcement officers over the problems handling suspects and defendants who are, in their eyes, obviously illegal entrants into the country, who should be handled as such.

In this context, Brewer's announcement today was not really a surprise, though upper level law enforcement personnel have seemed to have considerable influence with state officials including Brewer. However, complications with border security and this year's absolute fiasco and PR disaster surrounding a canceled virtual fence project involving Boeing, which didn't work, contributed to the pressure for Brewer's decision today.

As for potential challenges to the Governor's decision...the American Civil Liberties Union will likely waste not time taking the state to federal court, in a case which might qualify for immediate consideration before the expiration of the court's current term....and more importantly, for opponents of the law ...consideration of the case before the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, considered the most liberal on the Supreme Court. More updates on this story as available.

The ACLU, in a press release today said,

"The law creates new immigration crimes and penalties inconsistent with those in federal law, asserts sweeping authority to detain and transport persons suspected of violating civil immigration laws and prohibits speech and other expressive activity by persons seeking work. The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arizona strongly condemn the governor’s decision to sign the unconstitutional law and are dismayed by her disregard for the serious damage it could cause to civil liberties and public safety in the state". According to the ACLU, the new law, which will not go into effect for more than 90 days, requires police agencies across Arizona to investigate the immigration status of every person they come across whom they have “reasonable suspicion” to believe is in the country unlawfully. To avoid arrest, citizens and immigrants will effectively have to carry their “papers” at all times. The law also makes it a state crime for immigrants to willfully fail to register with the Department of Homeland Security and carry registration documents. It further curtails the free speech rights of day laborers and encourages unchecked information sharing between government agencies.

Former Arizona Governor, now Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitaono, says the new law will interfere with with border enforcement efforts. In a statement released after the governor's signing, Napolitano claims the problem can only be settled at the national level and not by a patchwork of laws enacted by states. Governor Brewer's Border Security press release from April 22, 2010, click here.ACLU press release, click here. Arizona legislative summary of SB 1070, click here. Story from AZ Central, click here. 04/23/2010

JURY AWARDS 18.5 MILLION TO MAN SEXUALLY ABUSED BY BOY SCOUT LEADER IN THE 1980'S / JURY FINDS SCOUTS LIABLE FOR ABUSE AND COVER UP

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- After winning $1.4 million dollars in compensatory damages April 13, Kerry Lewis today was awarded another $18.5 million in punitive damages by a jury in an Oregon court. Lewis claimed he was molested by scout leader Timur Dykes after Dykes had admitted to molesting 17 others in a 1983 confession. Lewis sued claiming the Scouts allowed Dykes to be in a leadership roll, knowing his history of being a convicted child sex offender. In addition, another case was filed last month against Dykes by six others claiming to be victims. More in this must read article from the Oregonian, click here. 04/23/2010

U-S SUPREME COURT REJECTS FEDERAL LAW BANNING SALES AND PRODUCTION OF ANIMAL CRUELTY VIDEOS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Calling the federal law prohibiting creation and sales of animal cruelty videos "startling and disturbing", the Supreme Court voted 8-1 to reject the law as unconstitutional. The case before the court stemmed from the 1999 federal law which bans depictions of animal cruelty, which was used to prosecute film producer Robert Stevens. Stevens has created and sold videos showing pit bull dog fights. But, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote in the majority opinion that the first amendment prevents government restriction of expression, "because of it's message, its ideas, its subject matter or its content". Full text of actual decision from the U-S Supreme Court (U.S. -v.- Stevens), click here. 04/20/2010

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT REMOVES LAW BANNING UNMARRIED AND SAME SEX COUPLES FROM ADOPTING AND FOSTERING CHILDREN

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The Arkansas Supreme Court on Friday set aside a state law passed in 2008 which prevented same sex and unmarried couples from becoming adoptive and foster parents. The case involved Sheila Cole and her partner, who had previously been foster parents and wanted to take in a special needs child. Their case had been taken by the ACLU, which welcomed the Arkansas Supreme Court decision on Friday. A law called, "Act One" prevented Cole and her partner from doing so though they had previous experience as foster parents before the law was passed. In a statement released by the ACLU, Holly Dickson, staff attorney with ACLU of Arkansas said, “We are happy that the court recognized that Act 1 harms Arkansas� are often highly subjective, which also allows stereotypes to operate. "It eliminates potential qualified parents,” Dickson added,“We have a critical shortage of homes now and this ban was denying good, loving homes to our most vulnerable children". The original trial judge, Christopher C. Piazza of the Pulaski County Circuit Court held that the law casts an unreasonably broad net and did not “serve the State’s interest in determining what is in the best interest of the child.”Arkansas officials have not announced whether they will appeal. Full text of ACLU press release, click here. 04/19/2010

ARIZONA GOVERNOR UNDECIDED ON FELLOW REPUBLICANS' NEW IMMIGRATION BILL PASSED IN LEGISLATURE / WOULD GIVE LOCAL POLICE POWER TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS / CHIEFS OF POLICE AGAINST IT

More from the Houston Chronicle, click here- 04/19/2010

MASSEY ENERGY FACES TOUGH QUESTIONS OVER HANDLING OF UPPER BIG BRANCH MINE / CONGRESSMAN GETS PROMISE FOR HEARINGS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom - Federal Investigators say workers at the Upper Big Branch Mine operated by a subsidiary of Massey Energy, were evacuated from the mine at least three times over the past two months due to a buildup of methane gas. The cause of the explosion, which has claimed at least 25 lives, has not yet been determined, however preliminary indications from agencies involved in the disaster is that a buildup of methane is probably the primary cause. As of Tuesday night, some of the victims bodies still had not been identified due to the severity of their injuries. The mine had been cited for repeated violations including more than 50 last month in an inspection by Mine Safety and Health Administration. Former mine regulators complain fines against mining companies, including Massey, are often left unpaid or paid in such small installments that the effectiveness of the penalties is lost.

U.S. Rep. Nick J. Rahall (D-WV), whose district includes the mine, today called on House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) to hold hearings on yesterday’s tragic explosion at Massey Energy's Performance Coal Company’s Upper Big Branch mine.  Chairman Miller has agreed to Rahall’s request to hold a hearing to examine the disaster. In 2006, a buildup of methane gas killed 12 workers in the Sago Mine Disaster about 100 miles from the Upper Big Branch Mine.

An article in the New York times today, quoted J. Davitt McAteer, a former assistant director of the Mine Safety and Health Administration MSHA, said the Massey company “is certainly one of the worst in the industry” when it came to safety, and called recent violations at the mine for substandard ventilation and other problems “cardinal sins.” This despite statements today from Massey Energy executives claiming Massey and its subsidiaries have one of the best safety records in the business. The New York Times also reported that, in 2008, the Aracoma Coal Company, a subsidiary of Massey, agreed to pay $4.2 million in criminal fines and civil penalties and to plead guilty to several safety violations related to a 2006 fire that killed two miners at a coal mine in Logan, W.Va.

After the fire broke out, the two miners found themselves unable to escape, partly because the company had removed some ventilation controls inside the mine. The workers died of suffocation. Federal prosecutors at the time called it the largest such settlement in the history of the coal industry.

ACCORDING TO REPORTS EMERITUS NEWS HAS LOCATED, WHICH ARE FILED WITH THE MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MHSA), the Upper Big Branch Mine, since 2006, has been tagged with more than $1.8 million dollars in proposed fines, including $188,000 in proposed fines, so far this year. Full text of MSHA overview, click here. The report lists Massey subsidiary Performance Coal as the operator of the mine. The MSHA lists a document dated March 30, 2010, which sets up required improvements and monitoring for the mine's methane gas problems. Full text of March 30th order, click here. MSHA Directory of Upper Big Branch Mine violations and remedial required action, click here.

New York Times story on Upper Big Branch Mine violations, click here. 04/06/2010

CORPORATIONS PUT PRESSURE ON COLLEGE LAW SCHOOL CLINICS TO STOP FILING LAWSUITS AGAINST THEM

More from this article in the New York Times, click here- 04/05/2010

GAO REPORT SAYS EPA CLEAN UP FUNDS COULD RUN OUT

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The Government Accountability Office says, depending on the number of cleanup sites, annual cost estimates for remedial construction at these sites exceed past annual funding allocations for such actions. For example, EPA regional officials' cost estimates for remedial construction for the next 2 years--fiscal years 2011 and 2012--are $253 million to $414 million greater than the $267 million in annual funding that EPA allocated for remedial actions in fiscal year 2009. From fiscal years 2000 through 2009, EPA allocated $220 million to $267 million in annual funding for remedial actions. According to EPA headquarters officials, however, funds from additional sources--such as prior year funds, settlements with responsible parties, and state cost share agreements--may also be available to fund remedial construction from year to year. While the amount of funding available through these sources may vary substantially from year to year, according to EPA headquarters officials, approximately $123 to $199 million was available from additional sources for remedial actions in fiscal years 2007 through 2009". Copy of G-A-O summary of report, click here. 06/25/2010

THREE BIG DECISIONS FROM THE SUPREME COURT / DECISIONS ON SENTENCING FOR JUVENILES / CONTINUED INCARCERATION OF JUVENILE DEFENDERS/ MOTHER LOSES DECISION IN INTERNATIONAL CUSTODY

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- In a 5-3 decision the U-S Supreme Court it is unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile offender to life in prison without parole when the crime does not match the punishment.

The opinion is based on the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment. The vote is 6-3, reversing a lower court ruling in the case of Graham v. Florida. The ruling will now forces states to give juvenile offenders in these types of crimes the chance to prove they have been reformed. Another decision represented a big loss for those fighting the Affordability Care Act as it relates to the continued incarceration of sexual offenders.

The Supreme Court upheld the act allowing mentally ill sex offenders to be civilly detained after they have served their sentences if they “would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.”  The vote was 7-2 with Chief Justice Roberts joining the Court’s four moderates to form a majority. Justices Kennedy and Alito each filing concurring opinions and Justices Scalia and Thomas dissenting.

The third major decision dealt a clear blow to American parents who have abducted their children from parents in another country and amounts to U-S court recognition of an international child abduction treaty, called, "Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction" from the Hague Convention. The case before the Supreme Court, Abbott V. Abbott, involved the use of the international child abduction treaty to return a child to his father in Chile. The father had claimed the American mother had abducted the child by taking him to the U-S without the father's permission. The father, who is of British decent, had earlier won a court decision for "right of custody" of the child in Chile. As applied in the Abbott case, the 6-3 U-S Supreme Court decision means the father may now use the international abduction treaty to petition an American court for the return of the child. The father must still convince an American court the removal of the child will not result in "grave" physical or psychological harm. The child is currently living with his mother in Texas. Full text of decision on Graham V. Florida, click here. Full text of U-S v. Comstock decision involving incarceration of sexual offenders, click here. Full text of Abbott v. Abbott, recognizing custody decisions from other countries, click here. 05/17/2010

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT FINDS F-B-I TERRORIST LIST SLOPPY AND UNFAIR / LEADS TO PASSPORT AND VISA DENIALS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The FBI has been taken to task over how the list of suspected terrorists is managed. A report filed by the Inspector General's office at the Justice Department claims :

"... the FBI did not consistently nominate known or suspected terrorists to the consolidated terrorist watch list in accordance with FBI policy and did not update or remove watch list records as required. In addition, the audit found that the internal controls over processes used to nominate individuals to the terrorist watch list are weak or nonexistent.
During the audit, we notified FBI officials about involve murder. The opinion is based on the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment. The vote is 6-3, reversing a lower court ruling in the case of Graham v. Florida. The ruling will now forces states to give juvenile offenders in these types of crimes the chance to prove they have been reformed. Another decision represented a big loss for those fighting the Affordability Care Act as it relates to the continued incarceration of sexual offenders.

The Supreme Court upheld the act allowing mentally ill sex offenders to be civilly detained after they have served their sentences if they “would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.”  The vote was 7-2 with Chief Justice Roberts joining the Court’s four moderates to form a majority. Justices Kennedy and Alito each filing concurring opinions and Justices Scalia and Thomas dissenting.

The third major decision dealt a clear blow to American parents who have abducted their children from parents in another country and amounts to U-S court recognition of an international child abduction treaty, called, "Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction" from the Hague Convention. The case before the Supreme Court, Abbott V. Abbott, involved the use of the international child abduction treaty to return a child to his father in Chile. The father had claimed the American mother had abducted the child by taking him to the U-S without the father's permission. The father, who is of British decent, had earlier won a court decision for "right of custody" of the child in Chile. As applied in the Abbott case, the 6-3 U-S Supreme Court decision means the father may now use the international abduction treaty to petition an American court for the return of the child. The father must still convince an American court the removal of the child will not result in "grave" physical or psychological harm. The child is currently living with his mother in Texas. Full text of decision on Graham V. Florida, click here. Full text of U-S v. Comstock decision involving incarceration of sexual offenders, click here. Full text of Abbott v. Abbott, recognizing custody decisions from other countries, click here. 05/17/2010

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT FINDS F-B-I TERRORIST LIST SLOPPY AND UNFAIR / LEADS TO PASSPORT AND VISA DENIALS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The FBI has been taken to task over how the list of suspected terrorists is managed. A report filed by the Inspector General's office at the Justice Department claims :

"... the FBI did not consistently nominate known or suspected terrorists to the consolidated terrorist watch list in accordance with FBI policy and did not update or remove watch list records as required. In addition, the audit found that the internal controls over processes used to nominate individuals to the terrorist watch list are weak or nonexistent.
During the audit, we notified FBI officials of organizations linked to Osama Bin-Ladin and al-Qaeda and therefore, a "terrorist organization". The attorneys, Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor, are U-S citizens. Federal officials confiscated the Islamic foundation's Oregon branch assets in 2004, pending their investigation of "possible crimes". Federal prosecutors claimed evidence against the Islamic foundation was obtained through "classified information sources". As it turned out, the information came from illegal wiretaps on the Oregon group's attorneys during conversations with an al-Harramain group in Saudi Arabia. In today's ruling, California Northern District Federal Court Judge Vaughn Walker stated that the foundation and the attorneys were entitled to additional court time, "to determine the quantum of damages or other specifics of the judgment". The case originated during what was called, the "Terrorist Surveillance Program", now abandoned, which was instituted under former President George W. Bush after the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. Attorney General Eric Holder continued to defend the Bush Administration's position in the case, with federal prosecutors claiming court ordered release of evidence in the Islamic Foundation case would reveal "State Secrets". The Terrorist Surveillance Program was used to bypass requests for court ordered wiretaps and was abandoned in 2007 after media reports in a similar case in Detroit.

OBAMA NAMES REPLACEMENT FOR RETIRING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE STEVENS / SOLICITOR GENERAL ELENA KAGAN WAS FIRST FEMALE DEAN OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- As Dean of Harvard Law School, she was known for recruiting more conservative legal faculty to balance what was presented to students. Elena Kagan, now 50, later became Solicitor General of the United States and today, was nominated by President Obama as his choice to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Being Solicitor General, Kagan has presented cases to the Supreme Court, and according to the President, in his announcement today at the White House. Obama told those gathered at the White House,

"She has won accolades from observers across the ideological spectrum for her well-reasoned arguments and commanding presence. But Elena is respected and admired not just for her intellect and record of achievement, but also for her temperament -- her openness to a broad array of viewpoints; her habit, to borrow a phrase from Justice Stevens, “of understanding before disagreeing”; her fair-mindedness and skill as a consensus-builder". 

In her response to the President's nomination, Kagan told those assembled,

"I'm thankful to my brothers and other family and friends for coming to Washington to be with me here today.  And much more, I am thankful for all of their support and loyalty and love, not just on this day but always.If this day has just a touch of sadness in it for me, it is because my parents aren’t here to share it.  They were both, as the President said, the children of immigrants and the first in their families to go to college.  My father was the kind of lawyer who used his skills and training to represent everyday people and to improve a community.  My mother was a proud public schoolteacher, as are my two brothers -- the kind of teachers whom students remember for the rest of their lives. My parents’ lives and their memory remind me every day of the impact public service can have, and I pray every day that I live up to the example they set".

Response to her nomination has been mostly muted from liberals and conservatives alike, since she has spent most of her life in academia and public policy, previous to her position as Solicitor General. Text and video of announcement today at the White House, click here. 05/10/2010

U-S ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER SAYS ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW SUBJECT TO "POTENTIAL ABUSE" / HOLDER CONSIDERING COURT CHALLENGE

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Attorney General Eric Holder, during a news conference on an unrelated matter involving a settlement on the lawsuit against drug maker Astra Zeneca (See on health care page), today echoed the same concerns expressed by President Obama last week, as Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a tough immigration enforcement bill into law. Holder says the Arizona law drives a wedge between law enforcement and minority communities. Holder admitted that he is considering his options, including the consideration of a possible court challenge. Video of Holder news conference, click here. 04/27/2010

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULING: REPEAT OFFENDER LAWS IN NEW YORK UNCONSITUTIONAL / COULD HAVE IMPACT ON OTHER REPEAT OFFENDER LAWS AROUND THE COUNTRY

More in this article from the New York Times, click here Full text of actual decision (45 pages) by Judge Walker, click here. 03/31/2010

MISSISSIPPI FEDERAL COURT UPHOLDS RIGHT OF LESBIAN STUDENT TO ATTEND PROM WITH GIRLFRIEND / SCHOOL CANCELED PROM RATHER THAN ALLOW THEIR ATTENDANCE

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Eighteen year old high school student Constance McMillen had planned to take her girlfriend to a prom held by the Itawamba Agricultural High School in Fulton, Mississippi. The school canceled the prom rather than allow her and her girlfriend to attend. With help from the American Civil Liberties Union, McMillen took the school to court . Today the U.S. Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, in a 12 page ruling said,

“The record shows Constance has been openly gay since eighth grade and she intended to communicate a message by wearing a tuxedo and to express her identity through attending prom with a same-sex date. The Court finds this expression and communication of her viewpoint is the type of speech that falls squarely within the purview of the First Amendment. The Court is also of the opinion that the motive behind the School Board's cancellation of the prom, or withdrawal of their sponsorship, was Constance’s requests and the ACLU’s demand letter sent on her behalf.”

The court also ruled McMillen and her girlfriend be allowed to attend a privately organized party, in which the school was also involved. A-P story, click here. Full text of the ACLU press release, click here.

03/23/2010

SETTLEMENT WITH INJURED WORKERS IN 2001 WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK REJECTED BY JUDGE / NEW TALKS ORDERED

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- New York Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein today shocked the courtroom when he rejected last week's agreement reached between insurance companies and attorneys for injured firefighters, police, rescue, construction and sanitary personnel. It provided up to 657 million dollars to compensate more than 10,000 workers. During a Friday afternoon hearing, Judge Hallerstein said the agreement was "not enough", too complicated for the average worker to understand, and not clear as to how much of the settlement would actually be lost to attorney fees. Hallerstein suggested that attorney fees should not be counted as part of the settlement for the workers and should be negotiated separately. He had already taken over control of selection of a administrator and a medical panel to supervise the management of the money and medical treatment of the workers. The ruling means that both sides will have to renegotiate terms of a new agreement, presumably with Hallerstein's involvement. As of this posting, there was no indication whether either side planned to appeal. Judge Hallerstein's order taking control of administrator and medical panel, click here. Full text of attorneys statement of agreement from March 11th, click here. 03/19/2010

FAA SUPERVISOR AND AIR CONTROLLER SUSPENDED FOR ALLOWING JUVENILE TOWER VISITOR TO GIVE DIRECTIONS TO PLANES

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The Federal Aviation Administration has announced that has suspended and placed on administrative leave, a control tower supervisor and controller from JFK International Airport, New York, after allowing a juvenile visitor to the control tower, to provide directions to several flights. The incident brought terse comments from both the FAA and the union, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. The juvenile visitor was at the tower February 17th, during the President's Day holiday period. The FAA issued a statement today explaining,

“This lapse in judgment not only violated FAA’s own policies, but common sense standards for professional conduct. These kinds of distractions are totally unacceptable,” said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. “We have an incredible team of professionals who safely control our nation’s skies every single day. This kind of behavior does not reflect the true caliber of our workforce.”

The two JFK Tower employees, a supervisor and an air traffic controller, are on administrative leave pending the outcome of an official FAA investigation into the incident which is already underway.

In addition, all unofficial visits to FAA air traffic control operational areas, such as towers and radar rooms, will be suspended during the investigation. The FAA Administrator has directed a team to conduct a full-scale review of air traffic control policies and procedures related to facility visitors". Full text of FAA statement, click here. 03/03/2010

GAY MARRIAGE COUPLES FLOOD WASHINGTON DC COURT FOR LICENSES

More in this article from the Washington Post, click here- 03/03/2010

SUPREME COURT JUSTICES SIGNAL STATE AND LOCAL GUN LAWS MAY BE ILLEGAL

More in this article from the Washington Post, click here- 03/02/2010

SENATE PASSES ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO PATRIOT ACT / PRIVACY CHANGES LEFT OUT, SENT TO HOUSE

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The Senate has passed a year extension to sections of the Patriot Act, which faced expiration at the end of the month. The extension avoids privacy protection provisions some senators wanted to add. The proposal now advances to the house. The extension allows multiple roving phone taps by court order. Court ordered seizure of property and records as part of an anti terrorism filing. And surveillance of non U-S citizens who are part of established recognized terror groups. 02/25/2010

ACORN OPPONENTS ARRESTED AFTER TRYING TO BUG SEN. MARY LANDRIEU'S OFFICE / ONE SUSPECT THE SON OF AN ACTING U-S ATTORNEY

More from the Emeritus Newsroom -Conservative activist James O'Keefe, remembered for his undercover video that allegedly showed the the group ACORN stretching eligibility of applicants to get housing assistance, has been arrested with three others for trying to electronically bug the offices of Sen. Mary Landrieu. The four identified themselves as telephone repairmen in order to access the Senator's offices in a New Orleans federal building. According to a press release from the FBI, JOSEPH BASEL, age 24; ROBERT FLANAGAN, age 24, son of acting U.S. Attorney Bill Flanagan in Shreveport, LA. ; JAMES O’KEEFE, age 25; and STAN DAI, age 24, were charged in a criminal complaint with entering federal property under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony. According to the FBI, FLANAGAN and BASEL were each dressed in blue denim pants, blue work shirts, light green fluorescent vests, tool belts, and construction-style hard hats when they entered the Hale Boggs Federal Building, located at 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130. Once in the building, FLANAGAN and BASEL sought access to the offices of Senator Landrieu. O’KEEFE was already present in the office, holding a cellular phone so as to record FLANAGAN and BASEL. Once inside Senator Landrieu’s reception area, FLANAGAN and BASEL told a member of Senator Landrieu’s staff that they were telephone repairmen, and they requested access to the main telephone at the reception desk. FLANAGAN and BASEL then manipulated the telephone system. FLANAGAN and BASEL next requested access to the telephone closet because they needed to perform work on the main telephone system. They were directed to the main office of the United States General Services Administration, also inside the Hale Boggs Federal Building, where they again represented themselves to be employees of the telephone company and stated that they needed to perform repair work in the telephone closet. Both FLANAGAN and BASEL stated that they had left their credentials in their vehicle. In addition, the complaint alleges that O’KEEFE and DAI assisted FLANAGAN and  BASEL in the planning, coordination, and preparation of the operation. The men were apprehended by the United States Marshal’s Service soon thereafter.

If convicted, FLANAGAN, BASEL, O’KEEFE, and DAI each face a maximum term of 10 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, and three (3) years of supervised release following any term of imprisonment.

The Washington Post is reporting that, O'Keefe on Thursday gave a speech to Libertarian Pelican Institute in New Orleans. O'Keefe was hailed as a conservative hero for dressing as a pimp and taping ACORN employees offering advice on how he and a partner could get away with running an international under-age prostitution scheme.

The United States Attorney’s Office reiterated that the complaint is merely a charge and that the guilt of the defendant must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The investigation is being conducted by Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Deputy Marshals with the United States Marshal’s Service. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Jordan Ginsberg. Full text of FBI press release, copy click here. 01/26/2010

SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN LIMITS TO CORPORATE, UNION AND INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Contribution limits on corporations, unions and wealthy individuals were struck down this morning by the United State Supreme Court. According to the Supreme court ruling, in January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary) critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for her party’s Presidential nomination. Anticipating that it would make Hillary available on cable television through video-on-demand within 30 days of primaryelections, Citizens United produced television ads to run on broadcasts and cable television. Concerned about possible civil and criminal penalties for violating §441b, it sought declaratory and injunctive re-lief, arguing that (1) §441b is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary;and (2) BCRA’s disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements,BCRA §§201 and 311, were unconstitutional as applied to Hillaryand the ads. The District Court denied Citizens United a prelimi-nary injunction and granted appellee Federal Election Commission(FEC) summary judgment. The ruling explains:

"....prohibitionon corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the factthat a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is aseparate association from the corporation. Because speech is an es-sential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials ac-countable to the people—political speech must prevail against lawsthat would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Gov-ernment to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest".

"There is no basis for the proposition that, in thepolitical speech context, the Government may impose restrictions oncertain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion".

HOWEVER, the court also upheld disclosure requirements that groups reveal who is sponsoring broadcast and cable TV political ads. The court said:

"The disclaimer and disclosure requirements are valid as applied to Citizens United’s ads. They fall within BCRA’s “electioneer-ing communication” definition: They referred to then-Senator Clintonby name shortly before a primary and contained pejorative references to her candidacy. Section 311 disclaimers provide information to the electorate, McConnell, supra, at 196, and “insure that the voters are fully informed” about who is speaking...".

In a dissenting opinion, Justices Breyer, Ginsber, and Sotomayor joined Justce Stevens to say:

"All that the parties dispute is whether CitizensUnited had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period. The notion that the First Amendment dictates an affirmative answer to that question is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided. Even more misguided is the notion that the Court mustrewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for-profit corporations and unions to decide this case. The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is itsiteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based
on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetoricalappeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United maybe required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the politicalsphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.
In the context of election to public office, the distinctionbetween corporate and human speakers is significant.Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests mayconflict in fundamental respects with the interests ofeligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races. The majority’s approach to corporate electioneeringmarks a dramatic break from our past. Congress hasplaced special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864. We have unanimously concluded that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process,” FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U. S. 197, 209 (1982) (NRWC), and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation,” id., at 209–210. The Cite as: 558 U. S. ____ (2010) 3 Court today rejects a century of history when it treats thedistinction between corporate and individual campaignspending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michi-gan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Relyinglargely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (WRTL), McConnell v. FEC, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U. S. 146 (2003), FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (1986) (MCFL), NRWC, 459 U. S. 197, and California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U. S. 182 (1981). In his landmark concurrence in Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346 (1936), Justice Brandeis stressed the importance of adhering to rules the Court has “developed . . . for its own governance” when deciding constitutional questions. Because departures from those rules always enhance the risk of error, I shall review the background of this case in some detail before explaining why the Court’sanalysis rests on a faulty understanding of Austin and McConnell and of our campaign finance jurisprudencemore generally .1 I regret the length of what follows, but the importance and novelty of the Court’s opinion requirea full response. Although I concur in the Court’s decisionto sustain BCRA’s disclosure provisions and join Part IVof its opinion, I emphatically dissent from its principalholding".

Full Text of Supreme Court decision, copy click here. 01/21/2010

F-B-I ILLEGALLY USED TERRORISM CLAIMS TO MONITOR PHONE CONVERSATIONS / ACLU CLAIMS LAW BEING MISUSED

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- In the wake of a report from the Washington Post this morning that the FBI routinely misused claims of terrorist connections to monitor phone conversations, the ACLU called for congressional action to tighten the rules in the re-authorization of the Patriot Act.

"With the reauthorization of Patriot Act authorities now pending, Congress has an opportunity to narrow the use of NSL powers and help avoid such abuses in the future. Given what we now know, it would be unthinkable not to make such changes in the law now while it’s possible", according to Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

The ACLU claims that the FBI routinely claimed false terrorism emergencies to illegally collect the phone records of Americans for four years of the Bush administration by abusing an already expansive Patriot Act power. Using “exigent letters,” or emergency letters, to gain private records for investigations when no emergency existed, the FBI seemingly violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The FBI also routinely issued National Security Letters (NSLs) after the fact in an attempt to legitimize the use of exigent letters. ACLU attorneys claim the NSL statute, widely broadened with the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001, allows the FBI to secretly demand personal records about innocent customers from Internet Service Providers (ISPs), communications service providers, financial institutions and credit reporting agencies without suspicion or prior judicial approval. The statute also allows the FBI to bar NSL recipients from disclosing anything about the record demand. Congress recently extended three unrelated provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire last year until February 28, 2010. There are several bills in both the House and Senate that address those provisions as well as the NSL statute. In 2004, the ACLU and New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of an ISP that the FBI served with an NSL. Because the FBI imposed a gag order on the ISP, the lawsuit was filed under seal. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in 2008 that the gag order provisions were unconstitutional, the “John Doe” NSL recipient in that case remains gagged. Full Text of ACLU press release, copy click here. 01/19/2010

MAJOR LEGAL GROUP THAT SUPPORTED CAPITAL PUNISHMENT CHANGES POSITIONS / DISBANDS

More from the New York Times, copy click here- 01/04/2009