bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index bumrejects.myfreeforum.org
Open discussion on just about any topic
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The 2nd Obama Administration
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> National Politics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2013 2:08 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

HotAir.com reports that "the investigators claimed that the efforts failed up front, with applications flagged as suspicious."

In short, the attempts to get fraudulent names on the election rolls FAILED.

Exactly how the election procedures relating to attempted fraud are intended to work in the world of imperfect greedy-for-power individuals of all political leanings.

The headline writer's "ballot-fraud scandal" is a lie; the investigation was into a "ballot-fraud attempt" - and such disinformation is precisely why so many thinking people view that "concern over ballot fraud is just paranoid conspiracy-theory rubbish."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What you see is only the tip of the iceberg.
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2013 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Somebody wrote:
BOOM! Judge Jeanine SCORCHES Eric Holder, says he should be INDICTED

http://youtu.be/URz09HHeogY


I get a chuckle everytime the "Judge" title is included when referring to Jeanine Ferris Pirro, as if that reflects some type of "cred" when she opines on Fox News Channel (yes, I know she did play a judge on the "Judge Jeanine" Fox News Channel TV program - but that doesn't count).

It is true that she was a GOP-elected County Judge in Westchester County, NY from 1991 to 1993, a job for which she did not run for re-election.

Ironically a decade later (2000) she was being groomed for the U.S. Senate Primaries (she was Westchester County DA then) when her husband, the most powerful real estate development lawyer and influential GOP "mover and shaker" Albert Pirro, Jr., was convicted by a jury of conspiracy and tax evasion.

That, combined with her history of prosecutorial misconduct, pretty much ended her political career for higher offices - although she apparently didn't get it, as she ran in the GOP Primaries in 2006 for New York Attorney General, after which she moved to that well paid haven of failed politicians, FNC.

When she entered the GOP race for New York State Attorney General, in her press releases she emphasized the arrests made in the DA's office-ran internet sex stings (111 alleged pedophiles in six years), or as her campaign literature read: "over 100 pedophiles — with a 100 percent conviction rate," with the press releases pointing out that the crimes were felonies punishable by up to four years in state prison for each count.

Well, "the rest of the story" and one of the reasons she was defeated, is:

- That nearly 1 in 5 defendants pleaded down from felonies to misdemeanors (according to her own DA's office stats); compared to neighboring Nassau County where only 1 of 40 felony charges in 5 years were allowed to plead down, and in Manhattan where only 1 of 16 (3 of 49) were not convicted of felonies;

- Only 8 (of the 111) men were sentenced to prison (reflecting the real judges' views of the evidence in the alleged pedophile crimes);

- 93% of the convicted men received some type of probation, most for 5 years, and others for "shock" probation, i.e. weekends in local jails for a time; and

- Only 2 cases went to trial; Both defendants were convicted at trial, and 1 convictions was later overturned on appeal.

And that's the story of the "judge" with a "100% conviction rate" - as she is often introduced on Fox News.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2013 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

She still has a license to practice law, unlike Barry and Michelle.
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tsiya wrote:
She [Pirro] still has a license to practice law, unlike Barry and Michelle.


It is true that neither of the Obama's Illinois law licenses are in an active status, but both continue to hold valid law licenses, albeit voluntarily inactive, hers since 1993* and his since 2007 when he declared for the presidency.

Most licensed attorneys and lawyers who have been admitted to the Bar in a state voluntarily request to be placed in an inactive status when they retire, or stop representing clients and appearing in court, i.e. when they stop "practicing" law for a living or as an advocation.

Which is entirely different than voluntarily surrendering a license, or having it revoked or suspended by the licensing committee or a court - neither of the Obamas have had any of those three actions taken.

The reason attorneys (like the Obamas) voluntarily go inactive is because it eliminates all the financial and other obligations of being licensed, e.g. Bar Association annual fees, expensive malpractice insurance, mandatory continuing Legal Education classes, attendance at Bar Assoc. meetings, availability for court-ordered "pro bono" representation, et al.

Retired lawyers are still lawyers even though they no longer are members of the Bar (pay the fees, etc.), and reactivating an inactive law license is easy - pay your fees and maybe take a refresher course.

The Illinois State Bar Association continues to list both Obamas as Honorary Members (voluntarily inactive).

*Prior to 01/01/00, the Illinois ARDC Rules required "a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer's preference because the lawyer was no longer practicing law."

Therefore Michelle Obama's inactive license record includes a notation "court ordered" which has led many bloggers to erroneosly infer that her license was suspended or her inactive status mandated by someone else.

As to Jeanine Pirro, she has NEVER practiced law, appeared in court, or representated a client in the private sector; although she does have her Juris Doctor from Albany (NY) Law School (1975). She is a politician and all her legal activities have been in elected or appointed State of New York positions.

I'm not stating that Pirro doesn't hold a law license in New York and therefore could practice law (as you aver), but I've never seen a reference to her holding a license.
And New York, like many other states, does not require a state law license to be a lower level (city, county, magistrate) elected judge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are offered the option of voluntary surrender as an alternative to disciplinary action too.
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tsiya wrote:
You are offered the option of voluntary surrender as an alternative to disciplinary action too.


Correct - but "voluntary surrender" of a law license is different than a "voluntary request" for inactive status - read my post again.

Neither Obama "surrendered" their law license, according to the Illinois Bar records; both "requested" inactive status when they retired from practicing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Era of Contempt


By FRANK SCHELL

One theme connects all the Obama administration scandals.

The Obama Administration has presented such an array of botched domestic and foreign policies that an observer can become disoriented. Seeing a blur of so many negative events is like watching a Jason Bourne movie, with the camera on high speed. Each alleged malfeasance or scandal is worthy in itself of deliberate scrutiny, yet as we start to examine each one, others suddenly compete for our attention. It is a dazzling tapestry of mismanagement at best. But there is one theme that connects it all: contempt.

First, we have a rogue agency named the Internal Revenue Service interfering in the lives of ordinary folks with views that are conservative or at odds with the Administration. This contemptuous act against Americans who have committed no apparent wrongdoing or financial legerdemain is heavy-handedness reminiscent of banana republics or authoritarian regimes of yesteryear.

Testifying on Capitol Hill about his reportedly 157 visits to the White House, former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman dismissively cited “the Easter Egg roll with my kids” among the reasons for such an astonishing number of meetings. Lois Lerner, Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations pleaded the Fifth Amendment, and Steven Miller, Acting Commissioner referred to the debacle as “horrible customer service” in his apology. To make it worse, the IRS will judge whether Americans are in compliance with Obamacare, not supported by a majority of the American people and railroaded into existence by the President. And it is the same IRS, which investigates U.S. companies for excessive corporate entertainment expenses that are reported as income tax deductions, that spent $50 million on conferences over a recent three-year period, with certain IRS officials staying in $3,500 hotel suites, according to findings of the Treasury Department’s inspector general. Indeed, the IRS has shown itself to be unworthy in its principal role as the instrument of revenue collection from American people and companies.

Further, the Department of Justice that has shown contempt for the First Amendment through highly unusual surveillance of journalists of the AP who like those harassed by the IRS, are seen to be a threat to the Administration’s narratives. In a disingenuous and cynical act, Attorney General Eric Holder invited journalists to an “off the record meeting,” again evidencing contempt for openness and the principle of transparency which the Administration has piously affirmed. All this comes from an Attorney General already held in contempt by the House of Representatives for not presenting documents relating to the mismanaged Mexican Fast and Furious gun tracking operation, the first such a sanction of a Cabinet official in American history.

Moreover, it has been revealed that an anti-abortion group in Iowa was directed to commit to the IRS that it would not demonstrate in front of Planned Parenthood, a crudely repressive action by the Department of Justice that seems at odds with the First Amendment.

The same contempt prevails in foreign policy. Benghazi is enshrouded in fog and allegations of deception by the Obama Administration, which before the November election desperately put out the story that the massacre of U.S. foreign service staff was the result of a video offensive to Muslims produced in California, and not a concerted ambush by Al Qaeda or its affiliates — to avoid the inference that America had not successfully broken the back of Islamist jihadism.

To this day, we do not know who denied requests for security at the American mission; who ordered a Special Forces unit in Tripoli to stand down, as charged by Gregory Hicks, formerly deputy chief of mission; who directed Susan Rice, ambassador to the United Nations, to take to the air waves and call it a reaction to a video offensive to Muslims; and who ordered that this misrepresentation be maintained for seventeen days until President Obama finally acknowledged that it was a terrorist attack.

Further, we do not know exactly what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama were doing during all seven hours of the siege of the U.S. consulate. And now, the controversial and highly criticized Susan Rice has been named national security advisor.

Perhaps the Administration hopes that Americans have attention deficit disorder — absorbed with buying and selling, family problems, and the distractions of a consumer economy — making them unable to assimilate and concentrate on so many issues of incompetence, or worse, illegality if proved.

What we have is a matrix of contempt — contempt for the American people, or at least about half of them; contempt for the principles of transparency and stewardship; and contempt for the pursuit of truth. Let us hope the electorate will speak out and make its will known; resignations of shameless senior U.S. officials could be too much to hope for.

Who knows — we might even get to hear Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, state that in an era of moral relativism, we must make allowances for our government.

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/06/06/the-era-of-contempt
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael Hayden: "probable cause" is not in the 4th Amendment

http://youtu.be/cGhcECnWRGM

_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tsiya wrote:
Michael Hayden: "probable cause" is not in the 4th Amendment


As any person literate in the English language can read the words "probable cause" ARE in the 4th Amendment. Therefore as any thinking person should understand, Hayden is talking about what the words "probable cause" mean today, in contrast with what they meant in the 18th century.

Re-posting my January 2012 comments in the We the People Forum here at bumrejects:
                        +++
Fourth Amendment  

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Historical documents:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendIV.html

There was no objection [by Founders, Framers, Ratifiers or citizens] to this Common Law Right as almost every citizen of the United States had lived under its conditions for their entire lives - it was made part of the Constitution, like the Third Amendment, mainly to quiet and quell the fears of citizens that this new and novel federal democratic-republican government might not honor Common Law Rights if they weren't spelled out and included in the Constitution itself.

It is this Amendment which many citizens today allege is being unduly infringed upon in times of war, and especially since 9/11/01.

To understand the ramifications understood in the 18th century - and see the roots of criminal law today - we can look to William Blackstone's Commentaries (1765-1769) which were "required reading" for all the attorneys and judges who wrote the Constitution.

--- excerpts ---

- An arrest must be by corporal seising or touching the defendant's body; after which the bailiff may justify breaking open the house in which he is, to take him:

- For every man's house is looked upon by the law to be his castle of defence and asylum, wherein he should suffer no violence.

- First then, of an arrest: which is the apprehending or restraining of one's person, in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime.

- But no man is to be arrested, unless charged with such a crime, as will at least justify holding him to bail, when taken.

- An arrest may be made four ways:

1. By warrant:
2. By an officer without warrant:
3. By a private person also without warrant:
4. By an hue and cry.

- 1. By warrant
[one opinion]

A justice of the peace cannot issue a warrant to apprehend a felon upon bare suspicion; no, not even till an indictment be actually found:

[and another opinion]

That a justice of peace hath power to issue a warrant to apprehend a person accused of felony, though not yet indicted; and That he may also issue a warrant to apprehend a person suspected of felony, though the original suspicion be not in himself, but in the party that prays his warrant;

- 2. By an officer without warrant
[arresting] any one for a breach of the peace, a felony actually committed, or a dangerous wounding whereby felony is like to ensue, and for that purpose is authorized (as if he had a warrant) to break open doors, and even to kill the felon if he cannot otherwise be taken; and, if he or his assistants be killed in attempting such arrest, it is murder in all concerned. Watchmen may virtute officii arrest all offenders and commit them to custody till the morning.

- 3. Any private person (and a fortiori a peace officer) that is present when any felony is committed, is bound by the law to arrest the felon; on pain of fine and imprisonment, if he escapes through the negligence of the standers by.  And they may justify breaking open doors upon following such felon: and if they kill him, provided he cannot be otherwise taken, it is justifiable; though if they are killed in endeavouring to make such arrest, it is murder. Upon probable suspicion also a private person may arrest the felon, or other person so suspected, but he cannot justify breaking open doors to do it; and if either party kill the other in the attempt, it is manslaughter, and no more. It is no more, because there is no malicious design to kill: but it amounts to so much, because it would be of most pernicious consequence, if, under pretence of suspecting felony, any private person might break open a house, or kill another; and also because such arrest upon suspicion is barely permitted by the law, and not enjoined, as in the case of those who are present when a felony is committed.

- 4. There is yet another species of arrest, wherein both officers and private men are concerned, and that is upon an hue and cry raised upon a felony committed. An hue (from huer, to shout) and cry, hutesium et clamor, is the old common law process of pursuing, with horn and with voice, all felons, and such as have dangerously wounded another.
--- end Blackstone ---

"Hot pursuit," due process and sworn warrants, arrests made during the perceived committing of a crime, curfews, temporary holding cells, etc., the "asylum" of ones' own "castle," and the differences outlining "reasonable" v. "unreasonable" searches [are the principle aspects of Common Law rephrased in the Constitution].
                    +++

All the federal courts, including SCOTUS, are regularly faced with applying the principles of the Framers' words of 18th century science, beliefs and understanding to the 21st century.

Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee the right of an individual to have a nuclear weapon or sarin gas to defend his home?

Likewise are the 18th century "warrantless" searches as defined above applicable in a world of sniffing dogs and sniffing electronic devices, thermal imaging, magnetic attached GPS tracking devices, and internet and telephone data-mining?

The fundamental prohibition of the 4th Amendment in the 18th century was against "general warrants" which allowed the government LEOs to search anywhere anytime; not against the "warrantless" searches and spying which are possible in the 21st century.

Anyway the resolution will be made by SCOTUS, not by a vote of the people or by op-eds from talking heads.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> National Politics All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 7 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum