Emeritus News Mobile
ADVOCACY-LEGAL PAGE
CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO HOME PAGE AND DIRECTORY
For Advocacy-Legal directory of organizations and agencies, click here
TOP ADVOCACY-LEGAL STORIES
WHY LAW SCHOOL GRADUATES GO WITHOUT JOBS AND AMERICANS GO WITHOUT LEGAL SERVICES
More in this Op-Ed from Stanley Fish, a professor of humanities and law at Florida International University, in Miami, click here - 02/22/2012
WALL STREET JOURNAL SAYS PRIVACY DATA BREACHED ON GOOGLE BROWSER / GOOGLE SAYS IT'S TAKING ACTION
More in this article from the Washington Post, click here - See video below of NBC Nightly News story. 02/17/2012
APPEALS COURT REJECTS CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 8
More from the Emeritus Newsroom- A lower federal court ruling, which struck down California's Proposition 8, outlawing same sex marriages, has been upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a 2-1 decision, the court ruled the law was unconstitutional since the state already allowed civil unions, but refused to honor marriages, thereby denying married couples the same rights as those in civil unions. The nature of the technicality involved with the ruling, does not directly address the legality of same sex marriage, only on the conflict between state law for civil unions and marriage.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the majority opinion, "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples". He added, "The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort".
It is not clear whether the case will be appealed to the U-S Supreme Court. Legal experts question whether the court would accept such a case where there are technical complications with a law involving civil unions, which is not directly involved with the issue before the court.
Full text of actual Appeals Court decision, click here. See Voice of America YouTube report, below. 02/07/2012
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’ getthe 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 ATTORNEY 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
84 YEAR OLD WISCONSIN WOMAN AND ACLU SUE THE STATE OVER NEW VOTER REGISTRATION LAW / SHE HAS NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE
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
MUST SEE VIDEO: ACLU TRACKS DOWNSIDE OF OPPRESSIVE IMMIGRATION LAWS IN ALABAMA
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
ACTIVISTS PUSH RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN CIVIL RIGHTS CASES
More in video below from the Voice of America (3 Minutes) - 12/03/2011
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, click here - More from the Associated Press, click here- 11/04/2011
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.
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
OHIO LEGISLATOR PROPOSES DRUG TESTING PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN RESPONSE TO DRUG TEST FOR WELFARE AND UNEMPLOYMENT RECIPIENTS - INTERVIEW ON RACHEL MADDOW SHOW (12 MINUTES)- 10/20/2011
FLOOD GATES OPEN FOR GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AND MILITARY RECORDS -MUST SEE VIDEOS FROM PENTAGON CHANNEL AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES
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 YouTube video of announcement from Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, click here. 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 (the 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:
-
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.
-
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,
-
TPIR will provide auxiliary aids and services when necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities and
-
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.
