SAN FRANCISCO, Kalifornia – May 23, 2010 – Two brothers in their late sixties are setting out on a journey they hope will “restore (freedom) to Amerika.” Starting out from San Francisco, Robin and Laird Monahan have begun a 3000-mile hike that will take them across ten states to Washington, DC.

Along the way, the Monahans hope to rally opposition to the controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United v. FEC. As the Times-Standard pointed out in a short piece on the Monahan brothers, the decision overturned sections of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, and ruled that corporations are entitled to some of the same rights as people.

“The Citizens United decision was just a hammer blow to me,” Laird Monahan said. “Frankly, I was despondent for a couple of days. I just thought the end of my country had come to pass.”

After long talks with his wife, Laird was only growing angrier. “I just said I gotta do something. I gotta do something physical, I gotta make a physical sacrifice to restore (freedom) to Amerika.”

Popularity: 5% [?]

RICHMOND – A Senate committee has rejected the so-called “castle doctrine” bill, which would have provided immunity from civil prosecution if you used lethal force to defend yourself and your home.

House Bill 854 was proposed by Delegate James “Will” Morefield, a Republican from North Tazewell and a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. It was struck down by the Senate Courts of Justice Committee on a 9-6 party-line vote Wednesday. All of the Democrats on the panel voted to kill the bill; all of the Republicans wanted to keep it alive.

Mike McHugh, president of the Virginia Gun Owners Coalition, called the committee’s action “outrageous.”

“It reflects confusion on the part of the Democratic leadership over the issue of the right to defend yourself. They’re not in touch with the average Virginian,” McHugh said.

But Andy Goddard, president of the Richmond chapter of the Million Mom March, a campaign against gun violence, said the bill was unnecessary and “nonsensical.” He said citizens should have the right to defend themselves, but he was against expanding legal protections for killing someone.

“It would send a message that a disproportionate response is acceptable. Expanding immunities could lead to people abusing the law. Who knows what someone could do,” Goddard said.

“Someone with a score to settle could shoot someone dead in their home and claim, ‘He was trying to attack me.’”

However, McHugh said the bill would have done more good than bad.

“This bill would keep homeowners who defend themselves from being sued by the intruder. After going through a scary ordeal like that, why should you then have to go through a civil suit?” he said.

The bill initially included language to exempt homeowners from being liable in criminal court as well. However, it was amended in the House to apply only to civil actions.

The House of Delegates had approved the bill on a 75-24 vote on Feb. 16.

Virginia is one of six states that do not have any form of “castle doctrine” legislation.

HB 854 stated that: “Any person who lawfully occupies a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling, having committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling, and the occupant reasonably believes he or another person in the dwelling is in imminent danger of bodily injury.

“Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, as provided in this section shall be immune from civil liability for injuries or death of the other person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling that results from the use of such force.”

Popularity: 6% [?]

A New York man is appealing a “disorderly conduct” conviction for praying in a public park.

Julian Raven, defended by the Alliance Defense Fund, was arrested while praying in an Elmira public park during a 2007 “gay pride” event.

“It’s ridiculous to consider the act of peacefully exercising one’s faith in a public park to be ‘disorderly conduct,’” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster. “The county court was correct in dismissing three of the convictions. They never should have happened. We are hopeful that the New York Court of Appeals will dismiss the fourth.”

The WND reported when the original convictions of four people were appealed. Three of the convictions already have been overturned.
Originally, seven people were arrested for praying during the June 23, 2007, homosexual festival in Elmira’s Wisner Park that was promoted by city officials. Three defendants were removed from the case almost immediately, leaving four to be convicted by Elmira city judge Thomas Ramich of “disorderly conduct.”

The convictions for three – Gloria Raven, Maurice Kienenberger and Walter Quick – later were overturned in the Chemung County Court.

The legal team defending the Christians reported the event was advertised by the city as open to the public.

The Christians “made their way to an area in front of the stage and began to pray silently while lying prostrate in the grass. A police sergeant had earlier informed Julian Raven that he could not enter the public park, walk through the park, or talk to anyone in the park about his religion. After the group began to pray silently on their faces, all were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct,” the organization reported.

Court records show that a Sgt. Sharon Moyer told Raven he could not disrupt the event.

So, the ADF reported, he and the others “entered the event to pray silently for event participants and to share the Gospel with them.”

“There was plenty of room in the park. No one was being turned away. They walked in silence. Neither the defendant nor anyone from the group bumped into anyone as they entered and they did not force others out of the way,” ADF said.

They walked to a grassy area near the front, kneeled down or laid down, and prayed.

“They chose this posture in order to be as non-threatening as possible,” ADF said.

Moyer reported she made the arrests because she was concerned that the “pridefest’ participants might react with hostility to the Christians.”

ADF argues that under the First and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, “peaceful speakers may not be arrested simply because others in the forum may react to their message in a hostile manner.”

“The lower courts in this case ruled that the arrests were proper because the defendant must have known that other event participants would respond with hostility. This, however, is precisely what the … cases prohibit,” the ADF asserts.

When the Christians were arrested, officials with Elmira justified their actions to WND.

Assistant Police Chief Mike Robertson told WND at the time that the members were accused of a “combination” of allegations, including the “intent” to cause a public inconvenience, a “disturbance” of a meeting of persons and obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic.

He also said at the time that the accusations would include taking part in “any act that serves no legitimate purpose.”

The prosecutor, Robert Siglin, said the city was concerned for public safety, and that’s why the Christians were arrested while exercising their First Amendment rights.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Documents from talks on a secret global copyright deal have leaked online, various sources are reporting. The documents discussed are said to confirm that internet service providers could be compelled to constantly sift through their customers’ data looking for copyright transgressions. The European Union’s data protection chief has said that such requirements could curtail individuals’ civil liberties.

It’s the latest twist in the tale of ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which has been swiftly and secretly negotiated by the 27 nations of the European Union, the US, Australia, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, Jordan, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates.

The leak, detailed by PC World magazine, covers ACTA’s “enforcement procedures in the digital environment”. The draft being circulated says that ISPs operating in nations that have signed up to ACTA would be forced to operate “automatic technical processes” to detect copyright-infringing activities.

Translated, that means they must examine data transferred by their customers for signs of copyrighted material, using the kind of deep packet inspection technology more typical of security services.

ISPs told New Scientist in December that such technology will not only slow downloads, but puts in place technology that could be used for snooping and censorship.

The leaked draft being circulated also says that those who ignore two warnings about infringing may have their internet connections severed by the state under a “three strikes” rule.

In France, the government has already introduced a measure along these lines. It was declared unconstitutional, but the government then amended it and introduced it again.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 24, 2010

The mother of a 13-year-old Montgomery County middle school student is demanding an apology from a teacher who had school police escort the youngster from a classroom for refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

The unidentified student was mocked by other children in her class and has been too traumatized to return to Roberto Clemente Middle School in Germantown, according to Ajmel Quereshi, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland who is representing the family.

A school spokesman said Tuesday that the teacher’s actions were a clear violation of the school’s regulations, which are based on state law. The teacher, who also has not been identified by either side, will have to apologize to the student, spokesman Dana Tofig said.

“The policy is very, very clearly stated,” Tofig said. “Our teachers are expected to know the students’ rights and responsibilities. . . . A mistake has been made, and it will be rectified.”

Quereshi said that as of Tuesday afternoon, no one from the school had contacted the girl or her family to resolve the issue. The teen’s mother tried to schedule a meeting with school officials but was told they would not meet with her if she wanted to bring a lawyer, Quereshi said.

The ACLU asked in a Feb. 5 letter that the teacher personally apologize to the student, promise to respect her rights in the future and discuss the incident with the class so it can become an educational opportunity.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that students cannot be forced to salute the flag. Maryland law explicitly allows any student or teacher to be excused from participating in the pledge, according to the ACLU.

The Montgomery school system’s student handbook contains a section about “Patriotic Exercises” that reads: “You cannot be required to say a pledge, sing an anthem, or take part in patriotic exercises. No one will be permitted to intentionally embarrass you if you choose not to participate.”

The incident began on a Wednesday in late January, when the girl did not stand for the pledge. Her teacher yelled at her, demanded that she stand and then sent her to the office for her defiance, Quereshi said. The school system confirmed the sequence of events.

The next morning, the girl again refused to stand for the pledge. This time, the teacher called two school police officers to the classroom to escort the girl to the office.

Source:  WashingtonPost.com

Popularity: 38% [?]

Justices overturn 1981 ‘Edwards rule,’ intended to prevent suspects from being badgered. If freed, the suspect can be questioned in 14 days, and any freely given statements can be used against him.

By David G. Savage

9:19 AM PST, February 24, 2010

Reporting from Washington

A crime suspect who invokes his “right to remain silent” under the famous Miranda decision can be questioned again after 14 days, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. And if he freely agrees to talk then, his incriminatory statements can be used against him.

In a 9-0 decision in a Maryland child-abuse case, the high court overturned a strict rule set in 1981 that barred police from questioning a suspect once he had asked to remain silent and to speak with a lawyer. Known as the “Edwards rule,” it was intended to prevent investigators from “badgering” a suspect who was held in jail after he had invoked his Miranda rights. In some cases, police had awakened a suspect in the middle of the night and asked him again to waive his rights and to admit to a crime.

Although that rule makes sense for suspects who are held in jail, it does not make sense for suspects who have gone free, the justices said Wednesday. In recent years, it has been understood to prevent police from ever re-questioning a freed suspect, even for other crimes in other places.

“In a country that harbors a large number of repeat offenders, the consequence” of the no-further-questioning rule “is disastrous,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.

If there has been a “break in custody” and the suspect has gone free, Scalia said the police should be allowed to speak with him after some period of time. “It seems to us that period is 14 days,” he said. “That provides plenty of time for the suspect to get re-acclimated to his normal life (and) to consult with friends and counsel.”

Then, if the suspect waives his rights and agrees to talk, any statement he makes can be used against him, the court said.

The ruling in Maryland vs. Shatzer reinstates a child-abuse conviction against a Maryland man who made incriminatory statements to a state investigator 2 1/2 years after he had first been questioned by police. At that time, Michael Statzer refused to talk without first consulting a lawyer. Later, however, he had been sent to state prison on another, unrelated charge.

When a new investigator asked him about the original allegation, he agreed to speak and admitted abusing his son. However, he later won a ruling from the Maryland courts that said his statements could not be used against him because he had been questioned without his lawyer.

The high court overturned the Maryland court’s decision and ruled that Shatzer’s incriminatory statements could be used to convict him of child abuse.

Source: LaTimes.com

Popularity: 38% [?]

A 59-year-old man is suing the City of Gillette and its voters for $22 million for ticketing another man who gave the police chief the middle finger.

Bruce Williams says the Police Department violated the man’s constitutional right to freedom of speech by ticketing him for breach of peace.

“Flipping someone off is not dangerous to anybody,” Williams wrote in the suit. “In today’s society it is common practice and hardly worth mentioning, let alone using the full force and fury of the government to prosecute someone.”

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in District Court, calls for a reformation of government. Williams also is suing every eligible voter in Gillette — 22,221 people in all — for failing to “uphold an age old right to criticize the police as well as allowing their government … to intimidate the people by allowing a false idea to be perpetuated.”

Williams is seeking $22,221,000 — $1,000 for each eligible voter.

In September, Jonathan Wall made an obscene gesture while speeding past Police Chief Rich Adriaens on Douglas Highway. Adriaens called police and a few minutes later, another officer stopped the car in which Wall was riding.

Wall, 19, was ticketed for breach of peace, and a 20-year-old man driving the car was ticketed for running a red light. It’s unclear whether Wall knew he was flipping off the police chief. Adriaens was not in uniform and was driving an unmarked pickup.

After reading the story in The News-Record, Williams wrote several letters to the editor to protest what he says was an injustice.

“I am not a lawyer or in any way associated with the legal profession, but I knew in my bones that this should be legal,” Williams said in the lawsuit. “After all, freedom of speech does not mean only freedom to praise, it also means freedom to criticize.”

Williams argues there is legal precedent to support his claim. Several courts in other states have ruled that giving someone the middle finger is protected speech unless it is done in a court of law or around a large gathering of children.
In January, city prosecutor Ken DeCock dismissed the charge against Wall, saying “it is in the best interests of justice.” The motion did not elaborate, and DeCock could not be reached for comment.

Williams says Wall never should have been ticketed in the first place. But since he was, the charge should have been dismissed immediately, not several months after the fact.

Williams also was upset the charge was dismissed in writing rather than in open court. As a result, the city has never had to admit it was wrong in ticketing Wall.

“When the government is this bad, the people have a right to correct it so it isn’t so bad,” Williams told The News-Record.

He has urged citizens to band together and demand that safeguards be put in place “to ensure this type of thing won’t continue in the future.” But the people he has talked to don’t seem to care.

Williams, an independent contractor who lives in the Fox Park subdivision, decided to sue to get people’s attention. He insists the lawsuit isn’t about money.

“The objective here is to get the people of Gillette to change their government so it works properly,” he said.

Williams will represent himself without a lawyer. A trial date has not been scheduled yet.

Neither Adriaens nor City Attorney Charlie Anderson could be reached for comment. The News-Record could not find a listed telephone number for Wall.

http://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/articles/2010/02/15/news/today/news01.txt

Popularity: 4% [?]