Posts Tagged ‘Law’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

URGENT: Food Safety Vote Next Week‏

November 12, 2010

Quote of the Day: “Given sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.” — Woody Page, Denver sports columnist

S. 510 will make your food more expensive and less safe. It will drive many small farms out of business. The leaders of the “lame duck” Congress want to pass this falsely named “food safety” bill NEXT WEEK, but . . .

They’ll need 60 votes to break Sen. Coburn’s “hold” on the bill.

That means we can defeat S.510 with just 40 votes, but we must apply the pressure now!

Please send a letter right now telling your Senators to oppose S. 510.

You may borrow from or copy this letter . . .

S.510 will crush family farms and small businesses with excessive regulations – even though they were NOT the source of recent food safety problems.

S.510 also violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the FDA to invade and search farms and food producers without court permission.

If you think the FDA will use this new power responsibly, think again. David Gumpert reports that the FDA shut down two raw-milk cheese-makers for the presence of the pathogen listeria, even though . . . http://tinyurl.com/2e5x2sq

* Nobody got sick
* The FDA almost never shuts down companies for the mere presence of pathogens – even when people DO get sick
* Companies have previously been allowed to clean things up, rather than shut down.

If the FDA is starting to behave like this now, just imagine how abusive it will be under S.510?

Finally, it must be stressed that big agribusiness has been the source of most recent food safety problems. S.510 will make this problem worse by burdening small producers, and driving them out of business. This will make our food supply more centralized, less diverse, and more dangerous.

Please STOP S.510. This Congress must NOT pass any food safety bill. Remember, the voters have repudiated this Congress, and it’s heavy handed ways.

END LETTER

You can send your letter through DownsizeDC’s Educate the Powerful System.

Remember, Congress DOES read your letters. They DO have an impact. The more letters they receive, the more we’re likely to succeed.

So please forward this, share on your social networks, and retweet this message: http://twitter.com/#!/DDCDispatch

And thank you for being a DC Downsizer!

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Blogroll, Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on URGENT: Food Safety Vote Next Week‏

The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ test

October 30, 2010

“Legal arguments for Obamacare’s individual mandate fail the ‘Alice in Wonderland’ test and the duck test. In two court challenges to the law in the past 11 days and a court hearing today on a third, the Obama administration’s legal position is fading faster than the Cheshire Cat. Democrats took some solace from the first case, a challenge in Michigan, because Judge George C. Steeh ultimately ruled in favor of Obamacare. Yet even though that Clinton-appointed judge refused to declare the mandate unconstitutional, he undercut the administration’s key argument that the penalty for failing to buy insurance is a ‘tax,’ and that the mandate it enforces is allowable within the broad taxing power provided by the Constitution. ‘The provisions of the Health Care Reform Act at issue here, for the most part, have nothing to do with the assessment or collection of taxes,’ Judge Steeh ruled. This is so important that the federal district judge in Florida, in Thursday’s preliminary ruling in the second case, spent 22 pages analyzing it. If the fine is a penalty rather than a tax, Congress’ power is far less extensive. Judge Roger Vinson noted Congress repeatedly called the fine a ‘penalty,’ explicitly changing its description from a ‘tax’ that earlier versions of the bill assessed by name. Citing Alice’s admonition to Humpty Dumpty that words can’t ‘mean so many different things’ as Humpty intended, Judge Vinson concluded, ‘Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing … [only to] argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely.’ Judge Vinson explained that no matter what Congress called it, the assessment was designed to act as a punishment, not a revenue measure. Hence, it’s not a tax. His 22-page analysis is an exposition of the logic that if something is called a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck — and the same goes for a penalty. The tax issue is vital because it’s the Obama administration’s fallback position if it loses on the first and biggest dispute, which is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause not only to regulate commerce, but to force individuals to engage in specific commerce.” —The Washington Times

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, States Rights, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ test

‘Army of One’ takes on Colorado Legal establishment

October 29, 2010

‘Army of One’ takes on Colorado Legal establishment

Campaign finance and electioneering complaint filed against “Know Your Judge” consortium

 

Contact Matt Arnold: director@clearthebenchcolorado.org or 303.995.5533.

This afternoon, Clear the Bench Colorado – Political Action Committee filed, pro se, a campaign finance and electioneering complaint against the “Know Your Judge” consortium: the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (“IAALS”), Colorado Bar Association (“COBAR”), Colorado Judicial Institute (“CJI”) and the Colorado League of Women Voters (“LWV”).

 

In this complaint, Clear the Bench Colorado alleges that both collectively as the “Know Your Judge” campaign and as individual organizations, these groups have engaged in electioneering communications through print, radio and television advertisements as well as on their website – in violation of campaign finance laws, which would have subjected them to the same guidelines to file as a political committee (and the same contribution and expenditure limits) with the Secretary of State’s office as were followed by Clear The Bench Colorado.

 

Tens of thousands of dollars have been spent by these organizations with no accountability or transparency, in sharp contrast to Clear the Bench Colorado – which has followed the ever-changing law to the letter – while conducting similar political advocacy activities.

 

In a clear example of “what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander,” Clear the Bench Colorado simply wants these organizations held to the same legal standard as is everyone else in the state.

 

Unlike the frivolous, groundless, and vexatious complaint filed by “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) against Clear the Bench Colorado back in May, this lawsuit has a solid legal basis (in part, due to the ruling against CTBC, ironically enough).  View our website, www.clearthebenchcolorado.org, to read the complaint in its entirety and for updates.

 

If Clear the Bench receives a favorable judgment, these organizations will be subject to fees ($50 per day that they didn’t file) as well as fines of 2-5 times the contribution totals above and beyond the $525 contribution limit of a political committee (which, since these groups spent at least $85,000, will add up to a hefty sum).

 

These groups, with armies of accountants and lawyers at their beck and call, should (and do) know better.  Apparently, they thought that they could get away with violating the law, since CTBC’s resources (and ability to challenge) have been strained almost to the breaking point.  However, they messed with the wrong guy…

 

Clear The Bench Colorado may be the underdog in this fight – but it’s not the size of the dog in the fight that matters, but the size of the fight in the dog.  CTBC doesn’t have armies of attorneys and accountants on call – but CTBC is… an Army of One.

 

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on ‘Army of One’ takes on Colorado Legal establishment

Greed, and Government

October 19, 2010

“Those who are always accusing people in the private sector of ‘greed’ almost never accuse government of greed, no matter what it does. Indeed, the question of whether the government is greedy almost never comes up, so most of us probably never think about it. … There are escheat laws, under which the government can seize the assets of someone who has died and whose heirs have not claimed those assets after some period of time. The theory is that there is no reason why banks should get that money. On the other hand, there is no reason why politicians should get it either, but the politicians write the laws. … Escheat laws are just one of the ways governments seize money. Income tax rates have been as high as 90 percent in the top brackets. Even after you have paid the taxes on your income and saved or invested part of what is left, the government comes back to take more of that same money, after you die, with estate taxes. Perhaps one of the most unconscionable acts of greed by government is confiscating people’s homes, in order to turn this property over to other people, who are expected to build things that will pay more taxes. … The biggest beneficiaries are the politicians who get a larger amount of tax money to spend in ways that will increase their prospects of getting re-elected. Seldom, if ever, are the people whose homes are destroyed, and whose lives are disrupted, among the affluent or rich. Urban renewal may go through the South Bronx, but not through Beverly Hills. And no one calls it greed.” –economist Thomas Sowell

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

Colorado Election : Positions concerning 2010 Statewide Ballot Initiatives

October 16, 2010

As directed by the Libertarian Party of Colorado Constitution, the Board of Directors has reviewed the 2010 amendments and propositions on the ballot for voter consideration.  There are seven proposed amendments to the Colorado Constitution and two propositions to change the Revised Statutes.

For the 2010 election, the Colorado “Blue Book” contains succinct summaries of each of these.  There are also pro and con websites and other information being provided in numerous information media outlets.
The Libertarian Party of Colorado consists of free thinkers and responsible voters who seek as much information as possible about the pros and cons of every voting decision they will make.  We believe every libertarian and other voters will make up their own minds based on their careful review of the issues.
The following are the Libertarian Party of Colorado positions concerning each of the 2010 Colorado initiatives.
Amendment P –Regulation of Games of Chance. The LPCO takes no position either way on this amendment.
Moves bingo and raffle licensing from Sec State to Dept of Revenue (or other designated by the state legislature).  In addition to time, energy, and money already expended on this change to existing law, there will be a onetime $116,000 expenditure from bingo and raffle license fees.
The amendment makes no significant changes to the Colorado Constitution or the long term financial situation of the State Government-
Amendment Q –Temp Location of State Seat of Government.  The LPCO recommends Yes on this amendment.
Currently there is no provision in the Colorado Constitution for convening of the State Government if a major disaster emergency were to make Denver unusable.  This amendment provides direction for the Governor and the Legislature to designate a temporary location for the seat of government.
Amendment R –Exempt Possessory Interests in Real Property.  The LPCO recommends Yes on this amendment.
Eliminates property taxes for individuals and businesses that use government-owned property for a private benefit worth $6,000 or less in market value.
The fiscal effects of this amendment are relatively minor, but should increase the efficiency of local governments by reducing the costs of assessing and collecting minor amounts of property taxes from numerous small assessments.
Ammendment 60 –Concerning Property Taxes. The LPCO recommends a YES vote on this amendment.
Strengthens TABOR by adding a new section (10) to Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution.
-Requires audit and enforcement of this section.
-All owners of real property would be entitled to vote on all proposed property taxes affecting their property.
-Voters may petition to lower property taxes
-Property tax issues shall have November election notices separate from debt issues
-Property Tax bills list only property taxes and late charges
-Enterprise and authorities shall pay property taxes.  Lower mil-levy rates to offset income to taxing dist
-10 year expiration on property tax rate increases
-Extending expiring property taxes, is a tax increase
-Prior actions to keep excess property tax revenue are expired; future actions are tax increases expiring in 4 years.  Local governments and enterprises will have to make serious adjustments to their budgets and seek direct voter approval of property taxes on at least a four-year cycle.
-by 2020, non-college school districts phase out ½ of their 2011 property tax rate for operating expenses.  State aid replaces the revenue.  Shifts school operating costs to State general fund from local resources.
Amendment 61 –Limit State and Local Government Borrowing. The LPCO recommends YES on this amendment.
-Repeals existing Article XI Section 3 and re-enacts the original 1876 version of this section to read, “The state shall not contract any debt in any form.”
-Repeals Article XI Sections 4, 5, 6(2), and 6(3) as obsolete and superceded.
-Repeals and re-enacts Article XI Section 6(1) to require voter approval for local governments to contract debt.  Also requires ballot title to be specific.
-Adds further specific requirements concerning debt to Article X section 20(4)
–November Ballot approval
–10 year limit on new local debt
–borrowing can’t exceed 10% of assessed valuation
–Tax Rates must be reduced when borrowing is repaid
Amendment 62 Application of Term Person. The LPCO recommends NO on this amendment.
Would define person as at the beginning of biological development and entitled to full protection of Colorado law.
This is an effort to insert the State into the intensely personal decisions concerning the beginning of human life.  It would only further complicate already difficult decisions.
Amendment 63 -Health Care Choice. The LPCO recommends Yes on this amendment.
Adds Article II section 32 to make health care choice a constitutional right.  Prohibits the state from requiring a person to participate in health plans.  Restricts the state from limiting a person’s ability to make or receive direct payments for health services.  Exempts emergency treatment and Workers’ Compensation from this new right.
This is in response to the recently enacted Federal health care decrees.  It is unfortunately now necessary for Colorado to take a stand to protect individual and state rights associated with US Constitution Article I and Amendments 9 and 10.
Proposition 101 -Income, Vehicle, and Telecommunication Taxes and Fees.  The LPCO recommends YES on this Proposition.
-Reduces state income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.5% in 2011 and then over time to 3.5%.
-reduces and eliminates vehicle taxes and fees over next 4 years.
-eliminates all state and local taxes on telecommunications service, except 911 fees
-requires voter approval to for future vehicle and telecomm fees.
–Proposition 102 –Criteria for Release to Pretrial Services Programs.  The LPCO recommends NO on this proposition.
Adds requirements to Colorado Statutes to prohibit release of a defendant on an unsecured bond to pretrial services program unless it is a first offense and is nonviolent misdemeanor.
If passed this measure will reduce the ability of Judges to release those accused of crimes while awaiting trial.  Those unable to afford additional bonding expenses would remain in custody.  Additional total costs to the State are estimated at $2.8 million.
Retention of Colorado Supreme Court Judges.
For the 2010 November election, voters are asked to consider retention/non-retention of a number of Judges.  The LPCO encourages all voters to carefully consider each judge.
Several of the Citizen initiated amendments on the 2010 November Ballot are in response to Supreme Court decisions contrary to the intent of existing constitutional provisions.  The activist nature of the recent Colorado Supreme Court and it’s decisions appears to be more focused on predetermined outcomes rather than the Rule of Law.
-The LPCO recommends NO on each of the 3 Supreme Court Judges to be considered.
SOURCE:
Date: 12 Oct 10
From: LPCO Board of Directors
To:   Colorado Libertarians and interested Voters
Subj:  Libertarian Party of Colorado Positions concerning 2010 Statewide Ballot Initiatives.

Perhaps the LPCO has regained some semblance of sanity? Time will tell.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Hoplophobia, Law, Local Politics Colorado, mysandry, News, Politics, States Rights, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Colorado Election : Positions concerning 2010 Statewide Ballot Initiatives

Follow the money! : Professor Emeritus agrees

October 14, 2010

The man made global warming fiasco took one heck of a shot from a real scientist.

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

~SNIP~

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

Full story HERE

This entire scam was, and is, nothing more than a money making fraud committed on a world wide scale, and yet there still are people here trying to pass laws, taxes etc. That would choke an already battered economy based upon this criminal foolishness. Be sure to read the entire article.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Follow the money! : Professor Emeritus agrees

Clear the Bench Colorado Press Release

October 7, 2010

Clear The Bench Colorado invites comparison: our Evaluations vs. the ‘Commission on Judicial Performance’ “reviews”

Contact Matt Arnold: director@clearthebenchcolorado.org or 303-995-5533

Clear The Bench Colorado invites comparison: our Evaluations vs. the ‘Commission on Judicial Performance’ “reviews”

Colorado voters are being subjected to a barrage of big-money, special-interest advertising on judicial retention elections this year – as decried in editorials from the New York Times and other media sources across the country, as well as in other news coverage statewide.Special-interest groups are spending tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars attempting to influence Coloradans to vote their way on the question of whether to retain incumbent judges (including three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices facing “stiff opposition” as they seek an additional 10-year term in office).

There’s just one problem with this narrative – and why you haven’t heard about it in the mass media.

All of this special-interest money is being spent in Colorado to prop up the judicial incumbents …

Legal establishment special-interest groups are spending tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars to convince Colorado voters that “all is well” with state courts – promoting the farcical rubber-stamp “reviews” conducted and published by the commissions on judicial “performance.”

Why are the “reviews” not a reliable source of information on judicial performance?

1. The “reviews” do not distinguish between good and bad judicial performance – and almost ALWAYS recommend a “retain” vote for the judges ‘reviewed.’ Colorado Commission on Judicial Performance Evaluations (CCJPE) Executive Director Jane Howell confirms that, over the decades-long history of the review process, Colorado Supreme Court justices “reviewed” by the commissions have received a “retain” vote 100% of the time.

(Similarly, Court of Appeals judges have also received a 100% “retain” recommendation, while all judges at other levels have received “retain” recommendations 99% of the time).

Even Fidel Castro and the late Saddam Hussein didn’t receive that level of “retain” votes!

(Although Colorado has plenty of good judges, at many levels – they’re not all that good.)

2. The “reviews” – published as a 5-paragraph narrative, only one paragraph of which even pretends to address actual judicial “performance” – provide very little substantive information on which to base an informed decision. The review criteria are shallow (“timeliness”, ‘orderliness’ and “demeanor”) rather than substantive and performance-based. The level of “evaluation” is more like a kindergarten report card (“Benny is punctual, keeps his area neat & tidy, and plays well with others” ) rather than a serious look at judicial performance.

A Denver Post guest commentary written by a former State Judicial Performance Commissioner provided an insightful critique of the current process several months ago.

3. The “reviews” provide NO information on how the justices actually voted in important constitutional cases – rulings which have had a tremendous (and highly negative) impact on Colorado citizens.

Where can voters get substantive analysis of the performance of Colorado Supreme Court justices?

Clear The Bench Colorado has conducted an exhaustive analysis of Colorado Supreme Court decisions addressing important constitutional issues of interest to the greatest number of Colorado voters.

We invite voters to compare and contrast our  Evaluations of judicial performance with the “reviews” perpetrated by the ‘performance’ commissions (and foisted upon voters, at great taxpayer expense and without opposing views, as is otherwise required by law for other ballot questions) in the “Blue Book.”

We are confident that discerning voters will find our  Evaluations of much greater value.

Voters deserve to be provided with more extensive, informative, and useful information on which to base their voting decisions.  “The high marks received by each justice through the system of evaluation in place” are NOT an endorsement of the justices, but rather  an indictment of the weakness and inadequacy of the judicial performance review process.  Despite the genuinely hard work and good intentions of the majority of the judicial performance review commissioners, the process (and end-products) are perhaps endemically flawed.

There has been a failure of real performance evaluation and a lack of analytical content in the write-ups for the voters.  If narratives provide meaningful information about how a justice has decided cases, there will be accountability and the system will work as it is designed to do.  Too often in the past, narratives have amounted to complimentary resumes instead of job performance evaluations.  Some commentators and observers have denigrated the narratives as a “rubber stamp” exercise for retaining judges.

The ultimate responsibility – and authority – rests with the voters.  Clear The Bench Colorado urges all Colorado citizens to become informed about how the Colorado Supreme Court has aided and abetted assaults on their rights (and wallets!) with a consistent pattern of not following the Constitution where it doesn’t agree with their own personal agenda – and drawing the necessary and logical conclusions.

 

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Blogroll, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Immigration, Law, Local Politics Colorado, mysandry, News, Politics, States Rights, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

Colorado tosses out it’s own Constitution!

September 30, 2010

Judge’s ruling against judicial reform group Clear The Bench Colorado undermines transparency, accountability in judicial retention vote

Judge’s ruling favors entrenched incumbents and big-money special interests

Contact Matt Arnold: director@clearthebenchcolorado.org or 303.995.5533.

Judge’s ruling against judicial reform group Clear The Bench Colorado undermines transparency, accountability in judicial retention vote

Judge’s ruling favors entrenched incumbents and big-money special interests

Late last Friday afternoon, Clear The Bench Colorado was stunned by the news that Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer (as an executive branch employee, answerable to the governor and not subject to a retention vote himself) set aside the documentary evidence, testimony by Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold along with the Elections Division director at the Colorado Secretary of State’s office AND the clear letter of the law to rule in favor of “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) in what the same judge had earlier characterized as a “frivolous, groundless, & vexatious” attack (er, “campaign finance complaint”).

Despite reliance on over a year’s worth of guidance issued by the office of Secretary of State (as confirmed in numerous documents and in witness testimony provided in hearings on 15 September) reached after “numerous” internal policy meetings and much research that Clear The Bench Colorado was, is, and ought to be properly characterized as an “Issue Committee” under campaign finance rules; CTBC’s scrupulous compliance with all rules, regulations, and reporting requirements for over a year; and dismissal of CEW’s earlier complaint as “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” – the judge changed course and found for CEW in their latest round of attacks, changing the rules in the final quarter of play.

Changing the rules at such a late date – mail ballots go out at the same time Clear The Bench Colorado has been directed to re-file as a political committee – and in direct contravention of the guidance upon which CTBC has relied for well over a year makes a mockery of the process of citizen civic engagement.  As noted by Clear The Bench Colorado lead attorney Scott Gessler,

“That’s just crazy, that ruling,” said Gessler. “What kind of crazy system is that, when you can’t trust what the Secretary of State tells you? [This ruling] means you have to hire a lawyer to do anything- to get involved at all in the political process.” (Colorado Independent, 9/25/2010)

From documentation provided by the office of Secretary of State:

Colorado campaign finance and Judicial retention

While judges are considered “candidates” for the purpose of campaign finance law in Art. XXVIII Sec. 2(2) of the Colorado Constitution, the question of the retention of a judge is a yes-or-no question.  Therefore, a committee organized for the purpose of advocating the retention or removal of a judge is advocating for a yes or no vote on that question, rather than advocating for the election or defeat of a candidate.  A committee organized for such a purpose is akin to a committee advocating for (or against) the recall of an elected official, which would register an issue committee under 1-45-108(6), C.R.S.  To that end, a committee established for the purpose of supporting or opposing the retention of a judge or judges is properly registered as an issue committee for campaign finance purposes.  Such an entity would not be considered a political committee, because political committees are established for the purpose of “support[ing] or oppos[ing] the nomination or election of one or more candidates” (Art. XXVII Sec. 2(12)(a)).  [emphasis added]

Adding insult to injury, the judge’s ruling is granting “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) more time to pay Clear The Bench Colorado what they’ve owed since July than time for Clear The Bench Colorado to re-file under “political committee” status or to appeal the ruling.

Naturally, Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) is trumpeting the ruling as a great victory, declaring in a press release Friday:

“The law does not permit a wealthy few to unduly influence the judicial retention process through large contributions against judges and justices whose rulings they don’t like.  Ethics Watch prevailed today in setting precedent to keep big money out of judicial elections…”

Ironically, the ruling “achieves” the exact opposite: big-money special interests will now be more prone to attempt to influence judicial retention elections behind the scenes, using vehicles other than the open and accountable “Issue Committee” organization types such as Clear The Bench Colorado.

In fact, big-money legal establishment special-interest groups are already active this year in promoting a “retain” vote for judicial incumbents (including, prominently, the three Colorado Supreme Court justices appearing on the ballot this year).  They’re just significantly less honest about their intentions…

In a campaign that has been conspicuous for its LACK of big-money interests and “large contributions” (Toro is whining about two – TWO! – contributions exceeding $500), acting with complete transparency and absolute accountability to educate voters as to their right to hold judicial incumbents accountable for their performance in office, and to shed light on the records of judicial incumbents at the highest levels in order to provide substantive information on which voters can base an informed decision, CEW’s attacks (and the judge’s ruling in this case) do the Colorado electorate a great disservice.

CEW’s Toro is right about one thing: “Judges are… subject to corruption” via the influence of big-money special interests keeping them in office.

The expenditure of tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) by legal establishment special-interest groups comprised of the very lawyers appearing before the judges they are supporting in office is much more likely to exert “undue influence” and raise the potential for “quid pro quo” corruption.

The Colorado Bar Association (COBAR) has already spent over $50,000 this last month (by their own admission) joining three other legal establishment special-interest groups (likely spending a similar amount, although the exact figures have not been made publicly available) in mounting an “education” campaign (electioneering without using the “magic words” of “vote yes” or “vote NO“) to prop up incumbent judges and justices.   In one month alone, they’ve spent more than CTBC has in a year.  Combined, these special interests are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in television, radio, and print ads providing “nonpartisan information about the performance of judges seeking retention” that, curiously, ALL supports a “retain” vote.

Another effort, sponsored by prominent Democrat attorney Mark Grueskin and other partisan attorneys (the “Colorado Judiciary Project”) is also spending large amounts (again, because this group formed as a “social welfare organization” their expenditures are NOT publicly available) supporting the judicial incumbents before whom they argue cases.  Conflict of interest?  Nah!

Ironically, these legal special-interest efforts come on top of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars used to produce and distribute the one-sided and shallow “evaluations” perpetrated by the (taxpayer-funded) commissions on judicial performance evaluation – which, again, advocate 100% of the time to “retain” Colorado Supreme Court justices in office.

NONE of these expenditures – hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote the retention of judicial incumbents in office – are transparent and accountable to the public.

Did Friday’s ruling really succeed in “setting precedent to keep big money out of judicial elections…”?

Hardly.   It just provided cover for the big money that’s already comfortably ensconced in the process – erecting additional roadblocks to shedding light on the fact, and restoring accountability to the judiciary.

Clear The Bench Colorado has been consistently open, honest, and above-board in educating the public, and has scrupulously followed the rules under Colorado campaign finance laws for well over a year.  Forcing CTBC to re-file under a different set of rules – changed in the final quarter – makes a mockery of justice.

Yet another reason that now more than ever – it’s time to Clear The Bench, Colorado!

http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Blogroll, Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, Local Politics Colorado, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, States Rights, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 3 Comments »

Oh give me a F**king Break! : Judge clears way for California’s first execution since 2006

September 24, 2010

I sat on a jury, way back in the day. I was still in California and a proud citizen of said state at that time.

At the time I was an auto Mechanic, with a basic Associates degree, and an ASS in Automotive Technology. Somehow, I ended up the Jury Foreman.

We deliberated long, and hard. Our Jury was in fact multiracial, with a slight bias toward Asian’s. It wasn’t the verdict, but the penalty that caused us to deliberate for so long… One Juror, was a devout Catholic that was very opposed to any harsh penalty. Another just didn’t trust the government. But, after a week, we, the people, decided that this miscreant that we were Judging? Needed to die…

Two years later, USSC decided that they, knew better than we the people…

This total miscreant, “fell” from a tier in a California State Prison. I am no fan of the Aryan Brotherhood, but hey guys? Ya’ got that one right! Broken Clock Justice perhaps..?

READ ON


Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, mysandry, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Oh give me a F**king Break! : Judge clears way for California’s first execution since 2006

World Hero of Solidarity?

September 21, 2010

The hero of obamanites everywhere, had this to say… Read on.

Part-time Cuban leader and full-time despot Fidel Castro gave a long overdue tip of the hat to Econ 101 when asked recently whether Cuba’s economic model was “worth exporting” to other countries. His reply: “The Cuban model doesn’t even work for us anymore.” What a shocker — not that communist/socialist/progressive models don’t work, but rather that a dyed-in-the-wool communist would actually acknowledge the truth of that statement.

Not to worry, however: No sooner had Castro uttered these words than the damage control party hopped into its East German Trabant and mobilized (read: got out and pushed). Typical statements begin, “What Comandante Castro meant to say was…” In this case, apparently the meant-to-say piece included a name change, as well: “U.S.” for “Cuban.” “The reality is that my response means exactly the opposite,” explained the ancient communista. Well of course it does! By the way, can we have our copy of Orwell’s “1984” back?

Further elaborating, World Hero of Solidarity (the title conferred upon him by the UN in 2009) stated, “My idea, as the whole world knows, is that the capitalist system now doesn’t work either for the United States or the world.” Yes, we know. The American media have done a fine job of telling us just that.

Meanwhile, el Presidente is laying off 500,000 state employees. By next March, these workers will be on the street — um, “released to the private sector” — and looking for nonexistent jobs in Cuba. With 85 percent of its workforce — or roughly five million people — working for the Cuban state, such a layoff is no small matter either. That number will eventually increase to one million due to “efforts to increase efficiency in the state sector,” making fewer new state positions available to the unemployed masses. Needless to say, massive layoffs are always symptomatic of sound economic planning in Castro’s world.

In one sense, however, Castro has hit on an important point: Our own “Comandante,” Barack Obama, continues to blur the lines between the economic models of the two nations. If the Chosen One is able to maintain his assault on the U.S. economy unabated, Castro’s statement will ultimately apply to both nations without caveat.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Domestic Violence, Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Immigration, Law, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on World Hero of Solidarity?

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »