I hope the Mormon Church sues Wikileaks for copyright infringment. Wikileaks has knowingly and intentionally placed the Mormon Church General Handbook of Instructions (1968) on it's website. Wikileaks claims that its website is to help "peoples of all countries who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and institutions." "We aim for maximum political impact." Speaking specifically about the General Handbooks, Wikileaks released this comment, "WikiLeaks will not remove the handbooks, which are of substantial interest to current and former mormons. WikiLeaks will remain a place where people from around the world can safely reveal the truth."
Even using Wikileaks own definition of purpose there is no reason that they should be posting the Mormon Church General Handbook of Instructions on its website. Posting the handbook reveals no "unethical behavior" within the Mormon Church. In fact the Handbook does just the opposite, it shows that there are no great hidden secrets or unethical behavior within The Church.
If Wikileaks has no respect for laws of the United States it is setting a troubling precedent. The Mormon Church General Handbook of Instructions is copyright protected, so why does Wikileaks think it can post it on its website? If a disgrunteled former employee of the National Security Agency (NSA) wanted to disclose top secret information with national security implications on Wikileaks would they allow it? Using Wikileaks current methodology with no regard for laws, privacy, or decency I think they would post top secret American information even if it led to the death of American citizens. Posting any information possible with complete disregard to laws, privacy, and decency is a slippery slope. I hope the Mormon Church sues Wikileaks for every violation possible under United States and International law.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Everyone Has Rights Of Due Process....Until They're In Denver
All Americans have the right to congregate in public places unless you are taking pictures of big Democratic donors or Senators. Watch the video of an ABC new's reporter get pushed into oncoming traffic, choked, and then finally arrested, today in Denver.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
The Perverse Law of Liberal Law Schools and Their Professors
"The Perverse Law of Child Pornography" by Amy Adler. Columbia Law Review March 2001
This is one of the most baffling articles I think I ever read. Among other things the author Amy Adler a professor from NYU states that child pornography laws designed to protect children, actually exploit them! I'm not kidding you've got to read this one to believe it. Even look at the title of the article "The Perverse Law of Child Pornography". Way to go Columbia Law I wouldn't expect anything less from you.
In this Article Adler raises the question about the censorship imposed by child pornography laws. "I argue that these laws, intended to protect children from sexual exploitation, threaten to reinforce the very problem they attack. The legal tool that we designed to liberate children from sexual abuse threatens to enslave us all, by constructing a world in which we are enthralled--anguished, enticed, bombarded--by the spectacle of the sexual child."
"Child pornography law presents the opportunity for a case study of how censorship law responds to and shapes a cultural crisis. We have two corresponding events. On the one hand, we have the “discovery” in the late 1970s of the twin problems of child sexual abuse and child pornography, and the continuation of the problems to the point where they have reached the level of an ongoing, “ever-widening” crisis. On the other hand, we have child pornography law. Born in the same period, created to solve the problem of child sexual abuse, child pornography law too has grown dramatically in the past two decades, expanding and proliferating along with the underlying problem that it targets. Yet, curiously, the law's expansion has not solved the problem, but only presided over its escalation. As child pornography law has expanded since the late 1970s, so has a “culture of child abuse,” a growing “panic” about the threat to children."
In this Article, Professor Adler argues that child pornography law, intended to protect children from sexual exploitation, threatens to reinforce the very problem it attacks. The Article begins with a historical claim: Our culture has become preoccupied with child sexual abuse and child pornography in a way that it did not used to be. The Article traces the rapid development of child pornography law, showing that a cultural transformation in our notion of childhood sexual vulnerability has coincided with the birth and dramatic expansion of the law. Professor Adler then introduces various causal accounts of this chronological correlation between the regulation of child pornography and the growing crisis of child sexual abuse. First, she explores the possibility that the burgeoning law of child pornography may invite its own violation through a dialectic of taboo and transgression. She then presents another reading of the relationship between child pornography law and culture: The law may unwittingly perpetuate and escalate the sexual representation of children that it seeks to constrain. In this view, the legal tool that we designed to liberate children from sexual abuse threatens us all, by constructing a world in which we are enthralled--anguished, enticed, bombarded--by the spectacle of the sexual child.
"I explore the possibility that certain sexual prohibitions invite their own violation by increasing the sexual allure of what they forbid. I suggest that child pornography law and the eroticization of children exist in a dialectic of transgression and taboo: The dramatic expansion of child pornography law may have unwittingly heightened pedophilic desire. I view law and the culture it regulates not as dialectical opposites, but as intermingled. Child pornography law may represent only another symptom of and not a solution to the problem of child abuse or the cultural fascination with sexual children. The cross purposes of law and culture that I describe above (law as prohibition, which both halts and incites desire) may mask a deeper harmony between them: The legal discourse on prohibiting child pornography may represent yet another way in which our culture drenches itself in sexualized children."
Adler goes on to say "The gaze that child pornography law constructs is just part of a larger process by which law spreads the sexualization of children. The expansion of child pornography law has opened up a whole arena for the elaborate discussion of children as sexual creatures. Quite simply: Even when a child is pictured as a sexual victim rather than a sexual siren, the child is still pictured as sexual. Child pornography law becomes a vast realm of discourse in which the image of the child as sexual is not only preserved but multiplied."
Adler quotes Judith Butler as saying 'Language that is compelled to repeat what it seeks to constrain invariably reproduces and restages the very speech that it seeks to shut down.' "The extensive efforts to regulate child pornography keep the story of children's sexuality constantly before us."
"Congress passed the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act in part because it feared that child pornography was changing our view of children. Congress found:
The sexualization and eroticization of minors through any form of child pornographic images has a deleterious effect on all children by encouraging a societal perception of children as sexual objects."
"Although I contest the constitutionality of banning speech based on this finding, the fundamental insight of Congress was fair: Child pornography changes the way we perceive children. What Congress failed to see is that child pornography law itself has also done that. Even more directly than child pornography, child pornography law explicitly requires us to take on a “perception of children as sexual objects.”
"One harm of child pornography is that it pictures children as sexual. But so does child pornography law; it is itself a sphere in which that representation continues and multiplies"
"Child pornography law, and the culture in which it has grown, allow us an occasion to reconsider some basic assumptions that underlie the First Amendment--questions about the relationship between prohibition and desire, between censorship and speech, between law and culture. Censorship law does not only react to cultural trends. It also reflects, amplifies, and creates them."
"In our present culture of child abuse, is child pornography law the solution or the problem? My answer is that it is both. This reading pictures law and culture as unwitting partners. Both keep the sexualized child before us. Children and sex become inextricably linked, all while we proclaim the child's innocence. The sexuality prohibited becomes the sexuality produced."
Although many sources suggest that child pornography was widely available in the 1970s, by the 1980s, a number of accounts indicated that the commercial child pornography industry had been all but eliminated in this country. Even the Attorney General's Commission reported in 1986 that “there now appears to be comparatively little domestic commercial production of child pornography.” The lack of a domestic commercial industry was no cause for complacency, however. On the contrary, a dangerous cottage industry was forming. Furthermore, “there remain[ed] a significant foreign commercial industry” to combat. In any event, the public seemed to perceive that child pornography was on the rise. Activists warned that “child pornography distribution rings” were “ever-widening.” Yet, some critics maintain that the vigilance persisted without cause. One historian argues, for example, that “[i]n reality, child porn was never manufactured domestically on any large scale after the 1970s, and continuing arrests and seizures could be sustained only by steadily expanding the definitions of what was illegal and by emphasizing the role of pornography consumers rather than only the makers or distributors.”
Although some claimed it was a waning problem, Congress found otherwise. In 1986 Congress found that “child exploitation has become a multi-million dollar industry, infiltrated and operated by elements of organized crime, and by a nationwide network of individuals openly advertising their desire to exploit children.” A House Report from 1984 had estimated that “tens of thousands of children under the age of 18 are believed to be filmed or photographed while engaging in sexually explicit acts.”
According to the same methodology used by Adler there would be an increase in rapes as rape law become more prevalent and tightly defined. Stricter murder laws should increase murders and so forth.
So few Americans actually know anything about the specifics of child pornography laws that no real connection can be drawn from laws on the books and an increased interest in child pornography. If you ever have any doubt as to how stupid most Americans are watch Jay Leno sometime. Most Americans don't even know who the Secretary of State is let alone what some law says.
If lawyers, judges, and jurors who tried a child pornography cases later turned out to be turned on by child pornography or if they later became child molesters she should have introduced that evidence. Did Adler not introduce that because there was no evidence to prove the causal location? Is this just a classic case of building a "straw man" to knock over with one sided evidence?
If there was a connection between reading about child pornography laws and child molestation then she should have introduced evidence of convicted child molesters who said "it all started one day when I was sitting in the library of Congress reading about child pornography law....."
Give examples of other instances whereby passing laws increased people's desire to commit those crimes. Did Judges at the Nuremberg trials become Jew haters after looking at the atrocities of the German's? Did looking at pictures and listening to confessions from Germans who tortured, raped, killed, burned, starved, mutilated, sodomized, decapitated, and generally brutalized millions of Jews give them an insatiable desire to go out and do the same? But, it's forbidden fruit, Adler would say. She must believe that world wide laws protecting Jews actually promotes anti-semitism (I think there are some people in Tehran who would agree with her there). Using Adler's logic after studying about the atrocities committed by the Germans in World War II people will have an increased desire to murder Jew babies and throw their bodies by the thousands into mass graves.
Ultimately, Adler's argument is not only illogical, and a perfect example of how to build a "straw man" argument it falls under the "weak sauce" category.
This is one of the most baffling articles I think I ever read. Among other things the author Amy Adler a professor from NYU states that child pornography laws designed to protect children, actually exploit them! I'm not kidding you've got to read this one to believe it. Even look at the title of the article "The Perverse Law of Child Pornography". Way to go Columbia Law I wouldn't expect anything less from you.
In this Article Adler raises the question about the censorship imposed by child pornography laws. "I argue that these laws, intended to protect children from sexual exploitation, threaten to reinforce the very problem they attack. The legal tool that we designed to liberate children from sexual abuse threatens to enslave us all, by constructing a world in which we are enthralled--anguished, enticed, bombarded--by the spectacle of the sexual child."
"Child pornography law presents the opportunity for a case study of how censorship law responds to and shapes a cultural crisis. We have two corresponding events. On the one hand, we have the “discovery” in the late 1970s of the twin problems of child sexual abuse and child pornography, and the continuation of the problems to the point where they have reached the level of an ongoing, “ever-widening” crisis. On the other hand, we have child pornography law. Born in the same period, created to solve the problem of child sexual abuse, child pornography law too has grown dramatically in the past two decades, expanding and proliferating along with the underlying problem that it targets. Yet, curiously, the law's expansion has not solved the problem, but only presided over its escalation. As child pornography law has expanded since the late 1970s, so has a “culture of child abuse,” a growing “panic” about the threat to children."
In this Article, Professor Adler argues that child pornography law, intended to protect children from sexual exploitation, threatens to reinforce the very problem it attacks. The Article begins with a historical claim: Our culture has become preoccupied with child sexual abuse and child pornography in a way that it did not used to be. The Article traces the rapid development of child pornography law, showing that a cultural transformation in our notion of childhood sexual vulnerability has coincided with the birth and dramatic expansion of the law. Professor Adler then introduces various causal accounts of this chronological correlation between the regulation of child pornography and the growing crisis of child sexual abuse. First, she explores the possibility that the burgeoning law of child pornography may invite its own violation through a dialectic of taboo and transgression. She then presents another reading of the relationship between child pornography law and culture: The law may unwittingly perpetuate and escalate the sexual representation of children that it seeks to constrain. In this view, the legal tool that we designed to liberate children from sexual abuse threatens us all, by constructing a world in which we are enthralled--anguished, enticed, bombarded--by the spectacle of the sexual child.
"I explore the possibility that certain sexual prohibitions invite their own violation by increasing the sexual allure of what they forbid. I suggest that child pornography law and the eroticization of children exist in a dialectic of transgression and taboo: The dramatic expansion of child pornography law may have unwittingly heightened pedophilic desire. I view law and the culture it regulates not as dialectical opposites, but as intermingled. Child pornography law may represent only another symptom of and not a solution to the problem of child abuse or the cultural fascination with sexual children. The cross purposes of law and culture that I describe above (law as prohibition, which both halts and incites desire) may mask a deeper harmony between them: The legal discourse on prohibiting child pornography may represent yet another way in which our culture drenches itself in sexualized children."
Adler goes on to say "The gaze that child pornography law constructs is just part of a larger process by which law spreads the sexualization of children. The expansion of child pornography law has opened up a whole arena for the elaborate discussion of children as sexual creatures. Quite simply: Even when a child is pictured as a sexual victim rather than a sexual siren, the child is still pictured as sexual. Child pornography law becomes a vast realm of discourse in which the image of the child as sexual is not only preserved but multiplied."
Adler quotes Judith Butler as saying 'Language that is compelled to repeat what it seeks to constrain invariably reproduces and restages the very speech that it seeks to shut down.' "The extensive efforts to regulate child pornography keep the story of children's sexuality constantly before us."
"Congress passed the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act in part because it feared that child pornography was changing our view of children. Congress found:
The sexualization and eroticization of minors through any form of child pornographic images has a deleterious effect on all children by encouraging a societal perception of children as sexual objects."
"Although I contest the constitutionality of banning speech based on this finding, the fundamental insight of Congress was fair: Child pornography changes the way we perceive children. What Congress failed to see is that child pornography law itself has also done that. Even more directly than child pornography, child pornography law explicitly requires us to take on a “perception of children as sexual objects.”
"One harm of child pornography is that it pictures children as sexual. But so does child pornography law; it is itself a sphere in which that representation continues and multiplies"
"Child pornography law, and the culture in which it has grown, allow us an occasion to reconsider some basic assumptions that underlie the First Amendment--questions about the relationship between prohibition and desire, between censorship and speech, between law and culture. Censorship law does not only react to cultural trends. It also reflects, amplifies, and creates them."
"In our present culture of child abuse, is child pornography law the solution or the problem? My answer is that it is both. This reading pictures law and culture as unwitting partners. Both keep the sexualized child before us. Children and sex become inextricably linked, all while we proclaim the child's innocence. The sexuality prohibited becomes the sexuality produced."
Although many sources suggest that child pornography was widely available in the 1970s, by the 1980s, a number of accounts indicated that the commercial child pornography industry had been all but eliminated in this country. Even the Attorney General's Commission reported in 1986 that “there now appears to be comparatively little domestic commercial production of child pornography.” The lack of a domestic commercial industry was no cause for complacency, however. On the contrary, a dangerous cottage industry was forming. Furthermore, “there remain[ed] a significant foreign commercial industry” to combat. In any event, the public seemed to perceive that child pornography was on the rise. Activists warned that “child pornography distribution rings” were “ever-widening.” Yet, some critics maintain that the vigilance persisted without cause. One historian argues, for example, that “[i]n reality, child porn was never manufactured domestically on any large scale after the 1970s, and continuing arrests and seizures could be sustained only by steadily expanding the definitions of what was illegal and by emphasizing the role of pornography consumers rather than only the makers or distributors.”
Although some claimed it was a waning problem, Congress found otherwise. In 1986 Congress found that “child exploitation has become a multi-million dollar industry, infiltrated and operated by elements of organized crime, and by a nationwide network of individuals openly advertising their desire to exploit children.” A House Report from 1984 had estimated that “tens of thousands of children under the age of 18 are believed to be filmed or photographed while engaging in sexually explicit acts.”
According to the same methodology used by Adler there would be an increase in rapes as rape law become more prevalent and tightly defined. Stricter murder laws should increase murders and so forth.
So few Americans actually know anything about the specifics of child pornography laws that no real connection can be drawn from laws on the books and an increased interest in child pornography. If you ever have any doubt as to how stupid most Americans are watch Jay Leno sometime. Most Americans don't even know who the Secretary of State is let alone what some law says.
If lawyers, judges, and jurors who tried a child pornography cases later turned out to be turned on by child pornography or if they later became child molesters she should have introduced that evidence. Did Adler not introduce that because there was no evidence to prove the causal location? Is this just a classic case of building a "straw man" to knock over with one sided evidence?
If there was a connection between reading about child pornography laws and child molestation then she should have introduced evidence of convicted child molesters who said "it all started one day when I was sitting in the library of Congress reading about child pornography law....."
Give examples of other instances whereby passing laws increased people's desire to commit those crimes. Did Judges at the Nuremberg trials become Jew haters after looking at the atrocities of the German's? Did looking at pictures and listening to confessions from Germans who tortured, raped, killed, burned, starved, mutilated, sodomized, decapitated, and generally brutalized millions of Jews give them an insatiable desire to go out and do the same? But, it's forbidden fruit, Adler would say. She must believe that world wide laws protecting Jews actually promotes anti-semitism (I think there are some people in Tehran who would agree with her there). Using Adler's logic after studying about the atrocities committed by the Germans in World War II people will have an increased desire to murder Jew babies and throw their bodies by the thousands into mass graves.
Ultimately, Adler's argument is not only illogical, and a perfect example of how to build a "straw man" argument it falls under the "weak sauce" category.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Michael Savage Drops His Lawsuit Against CAIR
According to the San Francisco Chronicles conservative talk show host Michael Savage has changed his mind and is reluctantly dropping his lawsuit against an Islamic rights group that launched an advertisers' boycott after he attacked Islam and the Quran on the air, his lawyer said Thursday. A San Francisco federal judge threw out Savage's earlier copyright and racketeering suit against the Council on American-Islamic Relations last month but gave him a chance to file an amended suit by today. In an unusual court filing, attorney Daniel Horowitz, who had earlier promised a new suit that would pass legal muster, said Thursday that Savage has a legitimate case but has decided not to pursue it.
Insisting that Savage can prove the Islamic organization engaged in a conspiracy that harmed him financially, Horowitz said the talk show host is reluctantly dismissing the suit because of "factors arising out of this litigation," which he did not specify.
Later Thursday, Horowitz said he feared his client would be in danger if he continued the case. The attorney said he has no evidence that CAIR commits violent acts but alleged that the Islamic group is out to silence Savage and conducts campaigns that may stir up violence by others.
Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for CAIR, said Savage was "cutting his losses" by dropping the suit.
"They realized they had no case whatsoever but wanted to get one more smear in before they headed for the bushes," Hooper said.
Savage, who has about 8 million listeners a week on 400 stations for his syndicated "Savage Nation" talk-radio program, said in a broadcast last Oct. 29 that Muslims were "screaming for the blood of Christians or Jews or anyone they hate." He called the Quran a "hateful little book" and a "document of slavery."
CAIR, based in Washington, D.C., posted four minutes of excerpts from the broadcast on its Web site and called for an advertiser boycott. The group says Savage has since lost $1 million in advertising. Savage's lawsuit, filed in September, accused CAIR of copyright infringement, saying the group had misappropriated his words and used them for fund-raising. He also claimed the group was engaged in racketeering, describing it as a "mouthpiece of international terror" that had helped to finance the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. CAIR called those allegations preposterous and denied any connection to terrorism.
In a July 25 ruling, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said anyone who listens to a public broadcast is entitled to take excerpts and use them for purposes of comment and criticism without violating copyright.
In dismissing the racketeering claim, Illston said that even if Savage could prove CAIR was part of a worldwide terrorist conspiracy, he hadn't shown how it affected him or his broadcast. She noted that his allegations were largely focused on activities - such as lawsuits, boycotts and criticism of his broadcasts - that are protected by free speech, but said he could try to rewrite the claim to cure its legal defects.
Insisting that Savage can prove the Islamic organization engaged in a conspiracy that harmed him financially, Horowitz said the talk show host is reluctantly dismissing the suit because of "factors arising out of this litigation," which he did not specify.
Later Thursday, Horowitz said he feared his client would be in danger if he continued the case. The attorney said he has no evidence that CAIR commits violent acts but alleged that the Islamic group is out to silence Savage and conducts campaigns that may stir up violence by others.
Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for CAIR, said Savage was "cutting his losses" by dropping the suit.
"They realized they had no case whatsoever but wanted to get one more smear in before they headed for the bushes," Hooper said.
Savage, who has about 8 million listeners a week on 400 stations for his syndicated "Savage Nation" talk-radio program, said in a broadcast last Oct. 29 that Muslims were "screaming for the blood of Christians or Jews or anyone they hate." He called the Quran a "hateful little book" and a "document of slavery."
CAIR, based in Washington, D.C., posted four minutes of excerpts from the broadcast on its Web site and called for an advertiser boycott. The group says Savage has since lost $1 million in advertising. Savage's lawsuit, filed in September, accused CAIR of copyright infringement, saying the group had misappropriated his words and used them for fund-raising. He also claimed the group was engaged in racketeering, describing it as a "mouthpiece of international terror" that had helped to finance the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. CAIR called those allegations preposterous and denied any connection to terrorism.
In a July 25 ruling, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said anyone who listens to a public broadcast is entitled to take excerpts and use them for purposes of comment and criticism without violating copyright.
In dismissing the racketeering claim, Illston said that even if Savage could prove CAIR was part of a worldwide terrorist conspiracy, he hadn't shown how it affected him or his broadcast. She noted that his allegations were largely focused on activities - such as lawsuits, boycotts and criticism of his broadcasts - that are protected by free speech, but said he could try to rewrite the claim to cure its legal defects.
Kris Kobach is One Attorney Who is Using His Influence For Good
I’d like to highlight Kris W. Kobach for his efforts to enforce the law. I mean this sincerely when I say that Kris Kobach is a modern day patriot. It seems like everywhere you turn our elected officials are selling this country down the river. If Kobach was running for President not only would I vote for him but I’d even have his bumper sticker on my car. This guy’s resume is insanely impressive. He graduated from Harvard University with highest distinction in 1988 and at the top of his class in the Harvard Government Department. In 1988, the British government awarded him a Marshall Scholarship, which took him to England for post-graduate study. In 1992 he received his doctorate in Political Science from Oxford University. In 1995 he received his J.D. from Yale Law School. While at Yale, he taught undergraduates in the Yale Political Science Department, and in 1994 he won the Prize Teaching Fellowship, an award based on student nominations and faculty review. He also served as notes development editor on the Yale Law Journal. Kobach is currently a professor at the University of Missouri – Kansas City School of Law.
Kobach has litigated a number of high-profile lawsuits in the field of immigration. He is lead attorney representing the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, in its defense of an ordinance that prohibits the employment of illegal aliens by businesses and prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens by landlords. He also represents U.S. citizen students challenging state policies that grant resident tuition rates to illegal aliens in Kansas and California. He is Senior Counsel at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a Washington, DC-based legal advocacy organization that represents U.S. citizens in immigration-related cases across the country
Kobach has expressed dismay with Utah’s Assistant Attorney General Bill Evans’ opinion about whether or not Utah violates any laws by giving illegal aliens in state tuition. A law granting in-state tuition to undocumented students is legally sound, according to the Utah Attorney General's Office. "This statute, as I understand it and read it, seems completely consistent and compliant with those federal laws," Evans said. "It doesn't violate any (federal) law that we're aware of." Bill let’s take a look at what a state like Utah is doing when it gives in state tuition. It is spending the tax money of hard working Utahans to offset true cost of putting illegal aliens through college. AND TO WHAT END???!!! When these illegal aliens graduate from Utah colleges they cannot legally work in the state of Utah!!! These newly minted illegal-alien Utah college grads (thanks to Utah citizens) can’t work in the state of Utah and they can’t even legally work in any state in the country. If these illegal aliens buy fake ID’s (as most do) to find work then they are felons. So either Utah taxpayers are helping illegals graduate from college when then can’t work or taxpayers are subsidizing and assisting felons. How is it fair that hard working Americans pay for illegal alien’s tuition?
Tomorrow morning when you’re driving down the freeway at 5 mph on your way to work that you’re helping pay the tuition of some deserving illegal alien. How deserving are these illegal aliens who get their tuition subsidized? In the state of Utah if you have illegally been living in the state and going to high school (thanks Utah tax payers!) So in Utah the longer you break the law and the more laws you break the more you are rewarded!!! I think the fact that the illegal aliens have already received (up to 13 years) of free schooling is enough.
Two years ago a joint Education Committee had voted 17-3 to recommend repealing the law, after hearing from Kris Kobach, lead attorney for students paying out-of-state tuition suing Kansas over a similar law. Kobach on Wednesday called Evans' opinion "surprisingly superficial," saying A federal judge has dismissed the Kansas lawsuit, saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue. That decision is under appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which also oversees Utah cases. Kobach is also an attorney in a similar lawsuit filed in California state court.
"I'd like to see Utah correct its error on its own, rather than be forced to do so by a court," Kobach said. "The Legislature is betting, potentially, millions of dollars that the Utah statute will stand up in court. Frankly, that's not at all clear." But have no fear Utah citizens Evans, says the Attorney General's Office is confident that Utah's law will stand up in court. "We don't think those threats are really terribly concerning," Evans said. Thanks, Bill your confidence that Utahans will continue to support felons is truly heartwarming.
Where much is given much is expected. You are expected to do all you can to preserve this great nation.
Kobach has litigated a number of high-profile lawsuits in the field of immigration. He is lead attorney representing the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, in its defense of an ordinance that prohibits the employment of illegal aliens by businesses and prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens by landlords. He also represents U.S. citizen students challenging state policies that grant resident tuition rates to illegal aliens in Kansas and California. He is Senior Counsel at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a Washington, DC-based legal advocacy organization that represents U.S. citizens in immigration-related cases across the country
Kobach has expressed dismay with Utah’s Assistant Attorney General Bill Evans’ opinion about whether or not Utah violates any laws by giving illegal aliens in state tuition. A law granting in-state tuition to undocumented students is legally sound, according to the Utah Attorney General's Office. "This statute, as I understand it and read it, seems completely consistent and compliant with those federal laws," Evans said. "It doesn't violate any (federal) law that we're aware of." Bill let’s take a look at what a state like Utah is doing when it gives in state tuition. It is spending the tax money of hard working Utahans to offset true cost of putting illegal aliens through college. AND TO WHAT END???!!! When these illegal aliens graduate from Utah colleges they cannot legally work in the state of Utah!!! These newly minted illegal-alien Utah college grads (thanks to Utah citizens) can’t work in the state of Utah and they can’t even legally work in any state in the country. If these illegal aliens buy fake ID’s (as most do) to find work then they are felons. So either Utah taxpayers are helping illegals graduate from college when then can’t work or taxpayers are subsidizing and assisting felons. How is it fair that hard working Americans pay for illegal alien’s tuition?
Tomorrow morning when you’re driving down the freeway at 5 mph on your way to work that you’re helping pay the tuition of some deserving illegal alien. How deserving are these illegal aliens who get their tuition subsidized? In the state of Utah if you have illegally been living in the state and going to high school (thanks Utah tax payers!) So in Utah the longer you break the law and the more laws you break the more you are rewarded!!! I think the fact that the illegal aliens have already received (up to 13 years) of free schooling is enough.
Two years ago a joint Education Committee had voted 17-3 to recommend repealing the law, after hearing from Kris Kobach, lead attorney for students paying out-of-state tuition suing Kansas over a similar law. Kobach on Wednesday called Evans' opinion "surprisingly superficial," saying A federal judge has dismissed the Kansas lawsuit, saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue. That decision is under appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which also oversees Utah cases. Kobach is also an attorney in a similar lawsuit filed in California state court.
"I'd like to see Utah correct its error on its own, rather than be forced to do so by a court," Kobach said. "The Legislature is betting, potentially, millions of dollars that the Utah statute will stand up in court. Frankly, that's not at all clear." But have no fear Utah citizens Evans, says the Attorney General's Office is confident that Utah's law will stand up in court. "We don't think those threats are really terribly concerning," Evans said. Thanks, Bill your confidence that Utahans will continue to support felons is truly heartwarming.
Where much is given much is expected. You are expected to do all you can to preserve this great nation.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Will Phoenix School of Law, Become Another Stronghold for Mormon Law Students?
Phoenix School of Law first opened its doors in January of 2005. On June 11, 2007, Phoenix School of Law recevied provisional ABA accredidation. Provisional ABA accredidation allows Phoenix School of Law graduates to sit for the bar exam in any state. The law school in located in a high rise building in downtown Phoenix, Arizona. The proximity of the law school to most of the cities large law firms will be very convenient for students while completing internships, externships, volunteering, or working while still in school. Phoenix School of Law is owned by infinilaw which also owns Florida Coastal School of Law (located in Jacksonville, Florida) and Charlotte School of Law (located in Charlotte, North Carolina).
In the fall of 2007 Phoenix School of Law received 559 applications and addmitted 229 students. 70 students actually matriculated with a median GPA of 3.18 and a median LSAT of 153. Those median numbers are already better than some law schools who have been around for decades. Because they offer part time degrees and evening classes "non-traditional" students can keep working while attaining a juris doctorate.
I think that the Phoenix School of Law is going to go on to become a very successful law school. I also think that it will become another law school where Mormons will make up a large percentage of the student population.
In the fall of 2007 Phoenix School of Law received 559 applications and addmitted 229 students. 70 students actually matriculated with a median GPA of 3.18 and a median LSAT of 153. Those median numbers are already better than some law schools who have been around for decades. Because they offer part time degrees and evening classes "non-traditional" students can keep working while attaining a juris doctorate.
I think that the Phoenix School of Law is going to go on to become a very successful law school. I also think that it will become another law school where Mormons will make up a large percentage of the student population.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Better VP than Mitt Romney?
The world still awaits John McCain's Vice Presidential nomination. Word on the street is that McCain will make his announcement after the Olympics are over. The media is still abuzz with who John McCain will pick or should pick. Other than biggoted "Christians" who won't vote for Romney just because he is a Mormon how can anyone see a better fit with anyone other than Romney?
Let's compare two of the leading candidates. After highschool Mitt Romney earned a perfect score on his SAT. Mitt Romney then attended Brigham Young University where he graduated valedictorian, earning his Bachelor of Arts degree Summa Cum Laude in 1971. In 1975 Romney earned a joint juris doctorate and masters of business administration from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School. Romney graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School and was named a Baker scholar for graduating in the top five percent of the Harvard Business School. Mitt Romney then went on to create thousands of jobs for Americans and increase the retirement portfolios of thousands of people by increasing the value of their retirement portfolios. Mitt Romney created himself a networth of somewhere between $250 and $500 million dollars.
On the other hand you have Mike Huckabee. Let's take a look at his educational acheivements, jobs created, and demonstrated ability to create wealth. Huckabee graduated magna cum laude from Ouachita Baptist University with a bachelors degree in religion. Mike Huckabee has spent his entire adult life as a preacher (it's interesting to note that while Mitt Romney has held some important Mormon Church callings, he not only was making money for himself, for others, but was also recieving no money from the Mormon Church).
So, Mitt Romney graduated from the most prestigious Universities in the world at the top of his class. Mike Huckabee graduated from the top of his class (from a school that most people outside of Arkadelphia, Arkansas have never heard of). Was paid to preach the word of God, created essentially no jobs, and helped build zero companies. Looks like a close call from here.
Let's compare two of the leading candidates. After highschool Mitt Romney earned a perfect score on his SAT. Mitt Romney then attended Brigham Young University where he graduated valedictorian, earning his Bachelor of Arts degree Summa Cum Laude in 1971. In 1975 Romney earned a joint juris doctorate and masters of business administration from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School. Romney graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School and was named a Baker scholar for graduating in the top five percent of the Harvard Business School. Mitt Romney then went on to create thousands of jobs for Americans and increase the retirement portfolios of thousands of people by increasing the value of their retirement portfolios. Mitt Romney created himself a networth of somewhere between $250 and $500 million dollars.
On the other hand you have Mike Huckabee. Let's take a look at his educational acheivements, jobs created, and demonstrated ability to create wealth. Huckabee graduated magna cum laude from Ouachita Baptist University with a bachelors degree in religion. Mike Huckabee has spent his entire adult life as a preacher (it's interesting to note that while Mitt Romney has held some important Mormon Church callings, he not only was making money for himself, for others, but was also recieving no money from the Mormon Church).
So, Mitt Romney graduated from the most prestigious Universities in the world at the top of his class. Mike Huckabee graduated from the top of his class (from a school that most people outside of Arkadelphia, Arkansas have never heard of). Was paid to preach the word of God, created essentially no jobs, and helped build zero companies. Looks like a close call from here.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Empirical Legal Studies
We recently added a link to Empirical Legal Studies: "Bringing Methods to our Madness" Blog. The Blog itself has been around since early 2006 and has a huge archive of old articles. The blog is a collaborative project produced by Professor Jason Czarnezki of the Vermont Law School, Professors Michael Heise and Theodore Eisenberg of the Cornell Law School, and William Ford of the John Marshall Law School. ELS has a core group of editors and then consistently receives articles from other legal scholars throughout the world. I think you'll agree that there is a lot of great information available on the Empirical Legal Studies blog.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Rate-A-Lawyer
www.avvo.com is a new website where clients have the opportunity to rate the performance of their attorney in several different areas. Additionally, questions concerning different legal topics can be posted and an attorney can give general feed back. Pictures, profiles, and areas of practice expertise are provided for the available attorneys. Avvo.com isn't currently in every state but states with high populations already have a multitude of attorneys to view.
The Mission and Principles of Avvo,
Their mission is to help people navigate the complex and confusing legal industry. Choosing a lawyer is an incredibly important decision—yet most people have no idea how to go about doing it, and resources to guide them are scarce.
Avvo is guided by two basic principles:
1. Focus on the needs of regular people.
Many of the resources available today were developed for people who are already legal industry “insiders”—but Avvo was created specifically to help people who know very little about the law and may have no experience choosing a lawyer.
2. Provide information, as well as guidance.
We believe that providing open access to information about lawyers, coupled with guidance on how to use that information, is the best way to help people choose the right lawyer. Information is empowering: the more people learn about attorneys and how to select an attorney, the more comfortable and confident they’ll feel seeking legal help—and we think this will benefit both clients and lawyers.
I think this website is a great thing because it will allow clients to find attorneys who have the expertise that they are looking for. Once upon a time when all a client had to go off of was the picture of an attorney in a phone book they really didn't know what they were getting.
The Mission and Principles of Avvo,
Their mission is to help people navigate the complex and confusing legal industry. Choosing a lawyer is an incredibly important decision—yet most people have no idea how to go about doing it, and resources to guide them are scarce.
Avvo is guided by two basic principles:
1. Focus on the needs of regular people.
Many of the resources available today were developed for people who are already legal industry “insiders”—but Avvo was created specifically to help people who know very little about the law and may have no experience choosing a lawyer.
2. Provide information, as well as guidance.
We believe that providing open access to information about lawyers, coupled with guidance on how to use that information, is the best way to help people choose the right lawyer. Information is empowering: the more people learn about attorneys and how to select an attorney, the more comfortable and confident they’ll feel seeking legal help—and we think this will benefit both clients and lawyers.
I think this website is a great thing because it will allow clients to find attorneys who have the expertise that they are looking for. Once upon a time when all a client had to go off of was the picture of an attorney in a phone book they really didn't know what they were getting.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
"Jimmy Justice" takes the law and his video camera into his own hands
This guy is a great American, doing what citizens are supposed to do...keep the government in check. You've got to watch his videos they're really funny.
He calls himself "Jimmy Justice," a self-styled "cop-arazzi," armed only with a video camera as he prowls the streets of New York looking for law enforcement officers who are breaking the law. His targets are illegally parked city government vehicles -- particularly cars of traffic cops blocking bus stops, sitting in "no parking" zones or double-parked.
Cop cars blocking fire hydrants make him particularly incensed.
"Something like that is just despicable," Jimmy fumed, pointing to a police enforcement vehicle parked next to a fire hydrant on 33rd Street on Manhattan's West Side on a muggy July afternoon. "They're never allowed to block a fire hydrant -- but they do it."
He posts his best videos on YouTube and sends regular e-mail to the union representing the city's traffic enforcement agents, pointing out the most egregious parking offenses. And he has gotten results, he said, with some parking enforcers being fined because of his videos.
"I'm using a video camera as a weapon," he said. "I believe a video does not lie." As originally reported by the Washington Post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mVFXZ5wjzc
Jimmy Justice should start following some of our politicians around to see what kind of laws they're breaking!
He calls himself "Jimmy Justice," a self-styled "cop-arazzi," armed only with a video camera as he prowls the streets of New York looking for law enforcement officers who are breaking the law. His targets are illegally parked city government vehicles -- particularly cars of traffic cops blocking bus stops, sitting in "no parking" zones or double-parked.
Cop cars blocking fire hydrants make him particularly incensed.
"Something like that is just despicable," Jimmy fumed, pointing to a police enforcement vehicle parked next to a fire hydrant on 33rd Street on Manhattan's West Side on a muggy July afternoon. "They're never allowed to block a fire hydrant -- but they do it."
He posts his best videos on YouTube and sends regular e-mail to the union representing the city's traffic enforcement agents, pointing out the most egregious parking offenses. And he has gotten results, he said, with some parking enforcers being fined because of his videos.
"I'm using a video camera as a weapon," he said. "I believe a video does not lie." As originally reported by the Washington Post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mVFXZ5wjzc
Jimmy Justice should start following some of our politicians around to see what kind of laws they're breaking!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
