GO TO FORUMS TO see cases argued on Spam. Click STUDY GROUPS for articles, blogs, press releases on other topics.LA Progressive's writer:

Glenn Beck's March on Washington Here is an excerpt of comments from Yahoo uers. Those of us that have read America before 1687, The genesis
of the State of Ohio, and The White Separatist Movement,(a sociological study), Josef Stalin's Russia can only surmise that the years of relative peace in America has given birth to a tremendous disrespect for this country.

Beck Lie #2 : Mr. Beck said that no other President had ever been sworn into office without a Bible. He said he 'checked'.
He either did not check or he's lying. John Qunicy Adams used a law book. Franklin Pierce didn't even swear. He affirmed. Teddy Roosevelt used no Bible. Several Presidents kissed a Bible but did not swear on one.Reply.I'm not a Glen Beck or Sara Palin supporter but I do support the constitution an it's their right to speak just like Al (racists) Sharpton said,


The Rev. Al Sharpton, leading the civil rights march and rally, mocked the Beck production. "The folks who used to criticize us for marching are trying to have a march themselves," he said. "We come because the dream has not been achieved. We've made a lot of progress. But we still have a long way to go."
Achieved dream? Here's my right to free speach Al boy. You live in the greatest country in the world. It has a black president. It has opportunity's for all. It is also corrupt from people like you and that other guy Rev. Wrong. Stop your racial bellowing and teach young black people to be the best they can be. Thats their dream, not your spewing hatred and anti white racism. The succesful blacks I know despise your rants and claim you are as racists as some whites. Glenn Beck and Sara Palin might not agree with the liberal way but they are not racists. Maybe they are just trying to "achieve a dream".

That's it, libturds, get your HATE on. Show us your infamous TOLERANCE, you NAZI bigots.

Republikkkanism is a mental disorder
Wow isn't a little early for Halloween, guess not for these nut baggers... Glenn Beck thinks of MLK as a hero, but he calls Obama what he is, a self admitted Socialist who believes in social justice, and Beck is called a racist. People wonder why this country is going in the toilet because we are being ruled by the @#$# floating in it. Good job Glenn your rally was inspiring and focused on what true Americans believe in, getting back to what our founders wanted. I wish all you haters well, but you are what you are, I hope you change, but I doubt it.
Americans look silly in the eyes of the rest of the world when we give this kind of rhetoric any value. Beck is about Beck, not you, or me or middle America. He has no plan but to piss everyone off and divide this country. You can support the president and oppose some of his policies, but you cannot accept guys like Beck as having any power or ideas. Dems and Republicans need to step back and see the harm in this.
Palin frightens me with her rhetoric, and now Beck. What manner of a man is this to promote his views and timelines on others who are foolish enough to believe. Scary, truly scary times.

If a bomb had been dropped on the mall today the average IQ of the US would have jumped 20 points.

These people are dangerous... it's like living in Germany in the 1920s...
Thank you Glenn Beck and Sara Palin for all of your efforts to help the American people understand what this Country was founded on. Thank you for helping us all to realize that we do NOT want to move back into a Civil War era where the country is at battle with itself through violence and racial turmoil.

Nothing can be changed over night, however, I do believe we need these types of rally's to get us back a few pages and realize that this nation was established with the motto "In God We Trust". The good news is that you can't erase it from our history easily at this point in time because it is on our money!
Allow me to address a comment made by Al Sharpton in this article and hopefully turn it into a "teaching moment". Al Sharpton said "The structural breakdown of a strong national government, which is what they're calling for, is something that does not serve the interests of the nation and it's something that Dr. King and others fought against,".

Hello Mr. Al Sharpton. Let me remind you that this "structural breakdown" is what is happening right before our eyes with the current status of our government "turning away" and taking off in the wrong direction. Mr. Beck is trying to help me and YOU realize that this is the case, so that we can get back to being the Country we used to be in order to retain our strength as "One nation UNDER GOD, INDEVISIBLE with LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL". Ever heard that phrase? Probably not right? Did you ever even attend elementary school? Have you ever pledged allegiance to your flag? You do not have to answer my question, but ask it of yourself. Secondly, Don't try and say what Martin Luther King was all about because my friend you are as far from Civil Rights as the men who were bringing slaves to America to sell them and make a profit from such an evil practice. If you had it your way every person of English decent would be treated as those ancestors of yours were. That's not Civil Rights. That’s revenge. Revenge is hate. Hate is the very thing that Martin Luther King was fighting against.
We could do this all day... One last thing from me: Do we really want to see our country turn about face in the right direction? Then here's my solution and quote me on it!
***PALIN BECK FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT 2012! ***



I WILL BE SPECIALIZING IN CYBERCRIMES , LIBEL. You cannot hide.

Columbia biz grad demands Web site bare heckler's ID
By DAREH GREGORIAN

Last Updated: 7:23 AM, August 18, 2010

Posted: 2:57 AM, August 18, 2010


Columbia Business School grad wants a judge to unmask the cowardly creep who anonymously labled her a "whore" on YouTube.

In a Manhattan Supreme Court suit, Carla Franklin says she has "suffered damages in the form of disress and mental anguish" from a mean-spirited posting in a comment attached to a video posting of her -- and she wants a judge to give her a court order to force Google and YouTube to turn over the poster's identity.


Franklin became aware that some short video snippets she had done for Columbia -- including one where she advises students, "Don't take things so seriously" -- had been uploaded to YouTube, with the single-word slur posted in the comments section under the video.

Someone also set up a YouTube channel featuring video from an independent movie Franklin had acted in several years ago.

The single-word slurs "were made with the intention to harm Ms. Franklin's reputation and interfere with her relationships, employment and livelihood," the court filing says, and she wants to make the anonymous poster pay for her "personal humiliation, mental anguish and damage to her reputation."

"People feel bolder and bolder that they can say whatever they want when they post things with anonymity, but there can be consequences" if you say something defamatory, Franklin's lawyer, David Fish, told The Post. "If you're going to post something about somebody, you need to stand by it."

The suit notes that Franklin, a business consultant, is a highly accomplished woman. She graduated from Duke University in 1999 with degrees in biology and psychology, and after five years of work as a part-time actor and model, she attended Columbia Business School, graduating last year.

Fish said his client has a "fairly good idea who was doing this," but "we want to make 100 percent sure before we file suit."

Google and YouTube -- which was purchased by Google in 2006 -- don't comment on specific legal cases, but typically will turn over IP addresses and other identifying information if there's a court order.

A similar case played out last year in Manhattan Supreme Court, where model Liskula Cohen fought to uncover the anonymous blogger who had featured her on a "Skanks in NYC" blog.

The site featured numerous unflattering pictures of Cohen, and labeled her a "psychotic, lying, whoring . . . skank." A judge ordered Google to give up the blogger's computer info, and she was revealed to be Rosemary Port, an acquaintance of Cohen's.

Franklin's suit says there were three user names involved in the posting -- greyspector09, Jimmy Jean008 and JoeBloom08 -- and Fish said he suspects they're all the same person.

dareh.gregorian@nypost.com




Read more: http://newyorkpost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/youtube_gal_expose_whore_jerk_3fV39683OA8sPsBIC9ezYO#ixzz0wymmWLMh




Those troublemakers:http://www.paladium.net or are they?

Questions we have: are great-grandparents and grandparents, and parents who came here illegally from Italy, Haiti, the Ukraine,Eastern Europe, Vietnam, Cambodia, N.Korea, all countries in Central America and not so few in South America like Colombia included? or will they be "grandfathered in" but of course Cubans are excused. Well what about those Africans they dragged here in 1600's I mean is there a time limit or hundred year limit? If I was a practicing attorney I would have a ball with this issue.The Use and Abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment
by John Peeler posted on Monday, 16 August 20104
Share Fourteenth Amendment, Citizenship, and Children of Unauthorized Immigrants

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Only the Second Amendment (pertaining to the right to keep and bear arms) rivals the Fourteenth as a source of political conflict, and the latter is the basis for a far wider range of constitutional disputes. We are now engaged in two such disputes: should children of unauthorized immigrants have citizenship? and, is the prohibition of gay marriage unconstitutional?


The history of the courts’ interpretation of the amendment’s first section (see above) is especially tortured, in spite of the fact that its manifest intent when adopted in 1868 (after the Civil War) was to enforce equal citizenship rights for freed slaves. The Republican Party abandoned Reconstruction in 1876, as part of a deal with the (mostly Southern) Democrats, a deal that gave the Republicans the presidency. Subsequently, the North (mostly Republican) showed little solicitude for the well-being of the former slaves. The courts acquiesced in a long series of tortured reinterpretations of the amendment that were designed by southern whites to limit the effectiveness of black citizenship and restore the subordination of blacks to whites in the South. This culminated in the affirmation by the Supreme Court of legal segregation and the effective disfranchisement of Southern blacks. By the first decade of the twentieth century, the Fourteenth Amendment had been essentially nullified in terms of its original intent.

Parallel to this process of evisceration of original intent, however, came a long and complex series of creative appropriations of the amendment to serve purposes quite distinct from those of the framers. The most spectacular hijacking of the amendment was the doctrine that corporations are persons under the law and therefore may not have their “privileges and immunities” violated by any state. The courts used this doctrine to block state attempts to regulate corporations, thus facilitating the monopolistic abuses of the Gilded Age. Ultimately the Supreme Court reinterpreted this doctrine to allow significant regulation, but the doctrine still lives on in cases such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

More consistent with the intent of the framers is a wide range of cases that have used the Amendment to protect the rights of various categories of citizens against violation by the states. This was the foundation of the series of decisions that culminated in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and related decisions that dismantled the legal foundations of segregation (including laws against interracial marriage). It was also the basis for the extension to the states of constitutional protections against self-incrimination, and guaranteeing the right to counsel.

It is in this tradition that the current controversy over gay marriage was decided. United States District Judge Vaughn Walker, presiding in the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 which made gay marriage unconstitutional in California, declared, ”Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due-process and equal-protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8.”

The current conservative majority of the Supreme Court may not want to go so far as to legalize gay marriage, but they will have to come to terms with the argument that prohibiting gay marriage was a violation of the due-process and equal-protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. They tried may try to finesse it by holding that civil unions are a right that all states must respect, while marriage is a matter of religious freedom.

Many conservatives are now pushing to amend the Constitution to change the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that allocates citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. Unlike many examples of creative interpretation, this proposal would formally amend the amendment. Liberals learned in the 1970s, with the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, how hard it is to amend the Constitution; here is our chance to teach the same lesson to conservatives.









SF D.A Kamala Harris Posted a blog today on the Fourteenth Ammendment.



Kamala D. HarrisSan Francisco District Attorney and author of Smart on Crime
Posted: August 10, 2010 12:09 PM

Trimming a Little Fat Off the Fourteenth Amendment


Read More: Fourteenth Amendment , Immigration Debate , Immigration Reform , Kamala Harris , Mitch McConnell , San Francisco , Politics News

Her blog today:

It's an election year, and so we're accustomed to hearing typical hyperbole from politicians. But even the most jaded observers of our politics were troubled by the latest head-scratcher from Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The Senate Minority Leader suggested, without irony or humor, that Congress "ought to take a look at" eliminating the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to every natural-born American. He, and others in the punditsphere, believe that the Fourteenth Amendment is a problem because illegal immigrants come to this country unlawfully and then have children who are American citizens.

A generation ago, it would have been hard to imagine writing an op-ed defending the Fourteenth Amendment. But that's how polarized and demagogic our politics have become. The Constitution, we're told, isn't human history's finest effort to codify and honor the inalienable rights of persons; it's a loophole for illegal immigrants. And the Fourteenth Amendment? It's not the product of this nation's epic war to end slavery and enfranchise African Americans; it's just another political football that we can toss around to rile up votes and dollars on the margins.

We shouldn't be so cavalier. It dishonors our Constitution and our politics.

It's especially ironic that leading Republicans need this reminder, for it was another generation of Republicans that enacted the Fourteenth Amendment. We had a war about this very question--who is an American? Our answer was, and remains, elegantly simple: any person born in America is an American. Generations before the Civil War, our forefather fled the caste-like European system that uplifted people of "noble birth" and disenfranchised the rest of us. They crossed an ocean, fought a king, and died for a nation where your rights don't depend on your parents' lineage. Catholic or Protestant, sons and daughters of fishermen or noblemen, born to parents from many nations--they called themselves, and each other, Americans. The suggestion that we do any less today dishonors them and us.

Senator McConnell was right, though, that we need immigration reform in America. But thrusting a stake in the Fourteenth Amendment won't solve that problem. Extreme proposals like this are better designed for grabbing headlines, riling up the base, and driving contributions to one's party. But they're costing us a chance to actually solve problems. Honest dialogue about solutions isn't possible in an environment like this. Bipartisanship, compromise, and finding common ground aren't possible. We need to dial it back if we're going to have a chance to solve the big problems facing us, including illegal immigration. So, here's a modest proposal: Let's have a serious discussion that doesn't include eliminating entire sections of our Constitution. We'll each put forward our best ideas, without malignant agenda, we'll debate, and whoever convinces the majority of folks on the merit of their ideas, wins. We may actually solve the problem, which is what people deserve, and we'll spare our Constitution an unneeded trim.

Books & More From Kamala D. Harris "Smart on Crime."


Mitch McConnell

StephenAtHome If we repeal the 14th amendment, does that means there's room for another 2nd amendment? Same as the old one, but this time in all caps.
14 hours ago from SocialOomph

Read the vulgarity of what is considered humor today in America: See Below.

ryantenney @kleptomik The 14th "amendment" treats darkies like human beings. And that's wrong. #tcot #twisters #teabaggers #whatconstitution
less than a minute ago from web
BarristersBlog says: Is there a problem being a "darkie" and would these include
the 1 billion dollar recipients of the tanning salons? or the 4 billion in the world who would be classified as "darkies." Let us know.


Justice Kagan:
A political liberal who would be unable to issue rulings impartially? so we can also rewrite that assessment from the GOP and say a political conservative who would be unable to issue rulings impartially.

"Kagan was a politically motivated activist who would be unable to put aside her opinions and rule impartially. Democrats defended her as a highly qualified trailblazer for women who could bring a note of moderation and real-world experience to a polarized court they said was dominated by just the kind of activists the GOP denounced."

Lately I have noticed that there is a dearth of the following adage "if you have nothing (intelligent) nice to say. Keep quiet."

The real issue of Health Care Fraud..why isn't the GOP focused on the real issues? U.S. Attorney Names Health Care Fraud Coordinators (U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia)

Alexandria, Virginia - Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, has named three prosecutors to lead the Office’s efforts to combat health care fraud in the District.

Every year, hundreds of billions of dollars are spent to provide health care for millions of Americans, and each year billions of these taxpayer dollars are stolen through fraudulent schemes. Combined federal and state spending on Medicaid and Medicare is projected to exceed $800 billion per year in 2010. While there is no official federal estimate of the level of fraud in Medicare, Medicaid or the healthcare sector more generally, estimates project the amount at three to ten percent of total spending, which could correlate to $27 to $80 billion in 2010 alone, if left unchecked.

“Health care fraud drives up the cost of health care, insurance premiums and taxes for everyone,” said U.S. Attorney MacBride. “The Department of Justice and my Office have made prosecuting these fraudsters a priority so that we not only hold them accountable but also deter other would-be criminals.”

U.S. Attorney MacBride selected Marla Tusk to oversee health care fraud prosecutions in the Alexandria Division. Tusk joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2007, prosecuting narcotics and financial fraud cases, including a large mortgage fraud ring in Northern Virginia and a card-skimming conspiracy that targeted customers at high-end restaurants in Washington, D.C. Prior to joining the office, Tusk spent three years as a trial attorney with the Counterterrorism Section at the U.S. Department of Justice, where she was recognized for her prosecution of al-Qaeda conspirator Ahmed Omar Abu Ali. Tusk clerked for the Honorable Dennis Jacobs of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and received her juris doctorate from Columbia Law School.

Jessica Aber Brumberg was selected as the health fraud coordinator for the Richmond Division. She joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2009 and has prosecuted a wide range of cases, including fraud, child exploitation, narcotics and firearms. Before becoming a federal prosecutor, Brumberg practiced law at McGuireWoods, LLP, in Richmond, Va., largely focused on tort litigation in state and federal courts. She clerked for the Honorable M. Hannah Lauck of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and received her juris doctorate from Williams & Mary Law School.

Katherine Lee Martin will coordinate health fraud prosecutions in the Tidewater region, covering both the Norfolk and Newport News Divisions. Martin joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2008, prosecuting financial fraud and health care fraud cases, including an oncologist in Virginia Beach who fraudulently billed Medicare and Tricare for over $1.2 million. Before starting her legal career, Martin spent several years as a legislative aide on Capitol Hill. She clerked for the Honorable Tommy E. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and received her juris doctorate from William & Mary Law School.






Justice Kagan the 112th Justice of the Supreme Court.
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press Writer – 8 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The Senate has confirmed Elena Kagan as the 112th justice and fourth woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

The vote was 63-37 for President Barack Obama's nominee to succeed retired Justice John Paul Stevens.

Five Republicans joined all but one Democrat and the Senate's two independents to support Kagan. In a rarely practiced ritual reserved for the most historic votes, senators sat at their desks and stood to cast their votes with "ayes" and "nays."

Kagan isn't expected to alter the ideological balance of the court, where Stevens was considered a leader of the liberals.

But the two parties clashed over her nomination. Republicans argued that Kagan was a political liberal who would be unable to be impartial. Democrats defended her as a highly qualified legal scholar

In what Arizona Governor Jan Brewer called a “temporary bump in the road,” a federal judge on Wednesday issued a temporary injunction against key portions of the immigration law Americans have been arguing over for months.

The hangdog look that Brewer wore at the press conference following the ruling was apt for anyone who has read the law and noted the lack of anything novel or radical in its contents.

In her ruling, the judge overlooks elements of the plain text and federal law to lend credit to the Obama administration’s contention that the legislation puts legal aliens and citizens at risk.

Bolton’s bugbear is the section of the law that authorizes law-enforcement officers to demand proof of legal status from people suspected of unlawful activity – a provision that accords with existing federal law as well as decades of court rulings. Her main worry here is that legal aliens, cleared by law to reside in the country, will suffer an undue burden for failing to produce their documentation upon request. In her opinion, where she relies heavily on a 1941 Supreme Court case on state registration of aliens, she states: “This requirement…is likely to burden legally-present aliens, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s directive…that aliens not be subject to ‘the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.’”

Forgetting the melodrama of this statement, Bolton takes the Supreme Court’s words out of context to prop up her claim. While the Arizona law is limited to aliens who are detained on suspicion of having committed a crime, the Court opinion she cites refers specifically to “law-abiding aliens” as possible victims of catechistic police practices. This is not splitting hairs.

The stipulation that the police refrain from questioning law-abiding aliens and citizens about their true status is explicit in Arizona’s law, not to mention being a fixed element of federal law for decades. However, it goes mysteriously unheeded in the judge’s opinion – in much the same way that it escaped the media’s scrutiny for the better part of four months.

In a clever ploy, the judge negates the importance of this omission by making the case more about jurisdiction than the correct or incorrect application of federal law (on which grounds the Arizona law would almost certainly have been upheld). What she concludes is that regardless of the law’s merits or demerits, its state enforcement provisions cannot be implemented because immigration enforcement is the sole province of the federal government, and thus constitute an unconstitutional overstep of state power.

Of course, the Obama administration has shown no intention of lifting a finger to carry out its immigration duties, which could spell a different result for the law in the higher courts, and possibly a new set of representatives in November to boot. Border security advocates should grasp onto these new hopes as anodynes for their present sorrow.

More About: Social policy
You have to admit, Jan Brewer is the ugliest politician the United States has ever had.

we are in awe of her un-comely appearance. That is what you call an angry woman.
Well ok. The arrests have been made and none have to do with being undocumented aliens. The persons have had other legal issues. To be fair then EVERYONE IN ARIZONA SHOULD BE STOPPED. Anyone can have a suspended license, a warrant etc. In the early days of jurisprudence in America and the belief of the White People's Party is that the alpha and omega should rest with a Sheriff. Now we see the light.