Homosexual Advocates Of Same-sex Marriage Target Virginia

 (Sic Semper Tyrannis or "down with tyrants" is the official motto of the Commonwealth of Virginia )

• 
  

The legal team that overturned California’s ban on same-sex marriage is targeting Virginia to launch another challenge aimed at convincing the Supreme Court that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry no matter where they live.The American Foundation for Equal Rights(AFER) — with its attention-getting political odd couple of conservative Republican lawyer Theodore Olson and liberal Democrat David Boies —has announced it is joining a lawsuit against what the lawyers called Virginia’s “draconian” laws prohibiting same-sex marriages, the recognition of such marriages performed where they are legal, and civil unions.

(Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post) - Attorneys Theodore Olson, left, and David Boies depart the Supreme Court after no decision in the Defense of Marriage Act case on June 24.

It is one of dozens of lawsuits filed across the nation by same-sex marriage activists who say they feel emboldened by the Supreme Court’s decisions in June that overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that forbade recognition of same-sex marriages and separately allowed such unions to resume in California.
Despite the victories, the justices stopped short of finding that the Constitution requires that homosexuals be allowed to marry and left the matter, for now, to the states.
There are dozens of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts in 18 states, according to the Human Rights Campaign, and on Friday September 27, a state judge in New Jersey ruled same-sex marriages must be allowed there. Gov. Chris Christie (R) is appealing.
But the ultimate goal is the recognition of a constitutional right, such as when the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision.
The addition of Olson and Boies to a case in Norfolk willprobably bring more attention to the challenges to Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriages. The state’s voters in 2006 amended the state constitution to ban such marriages, as well as civil unions, and to forbid recognition of unions performed elsewhere. Thirteen states, including Maryland, plus the District of Columbia, allow homosexual marriage.
Olson said AFER was invited to join the case by attorneys for the plaintiffs, Norfolk residents Timothy Bostic and Tony London, whose marriage application was turned down, and Carol Schall and Mary Townley, who have a 15-year-old daughter and whose marriage in California is not recognized by the commonwealth.
Virginia is an “attractive target,” said Olson, who lives in the state, because its rejection of same-sex marriage and civil unions is so complete.
“The more unfairly people are being treated, the more obvious it is that it’s unconstitutional,” Olson said.
Olson and Boies, who were opposing counsel in the 2000 Supreme Court showdown in Bush v. Gore, received enormous attention when they teamed up to challenge California’s Proposition 8, which was passed by voters in 2008 to stop the same-sex marriages that the state’s high court had authorized.
The result was a full trial before U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who ruled that the California ban violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
The case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, reached the Supreme Court last term. But the justices did not rule on the constitutional question, instead finding that those who were appealing Walker’s ruling did not have the legal standing to bring the challenge.

(By Robert Barnes )

Should An Illegal Alien Be Licensed To Practice Law? Or Serve On A Jury? Or Drive A Car?

California’s Supreme Court is set to consider whether an illegal immigrant is eligible for a license to practice law in the state, in the latest case to pit the federal government against a state over immigration policy.
The California attorney general has thrown her support behind Sergio C. Garcia, who moved from Mexico to Chico, Calif., when he was 17 years old and is seeking admission to the state bar. The U.S. Department of Justice, however, filed a brief last year arguing that federal law prohibits him from receiving a law license.
The Justice Department said Mr. Garcia is forbidden from obtaining a license by a law Congress passed in 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.
Mr. Garcia, who graduated from Cal Northern School of Law in Chico and passed the state bar exam in 2009, said the case is about state sovereignty—not his immigration status.
“The federal government has never controlled who can and cannot be an attorney,” Mr. Garcia said. “They are trying to make a federal issue out of something that is within the state’s rights.”
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.
Mr. Garcia paid for his education with wages he made as a produce manager at a grocery store as well as with credit cards and proceeds from a self-help book, “Love, Sex and Romance,” he wrote in 2006. Lately, Mr. Garcia said he has been supporting himself with motivational-speaking fees and occasional paralegal work. Mr. Garcia, who owns a company that offers paralegal and other support services, plans to open his own law practice.
Mr. Garcia isn’t violating any criminal law by remaining in the U.S., but employers are barred from hiring him as long as he is undocumented. The law is grayer on whether a client could legally contract with him, legal experts said. Still, he could use a law license to provide free legal services, or, if he were to leave the country, he could advise foreign companies on U.S. law.
His father, now a U.S. citizen, sponsored Mr. Garcia for a green card when the family moved here in 1994, and Mr. Garcia has been waiting for a visa number ever since. His long wait is typical.
The hearing in San Francisco comes roughly a year after the Obama administration launched a program allowing undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to remain here and work legally. While Mr. Garcia, who is 36, is too old to participate in the program, his supporters say he is emblematic of the young immigrants the Obama administration has sought to shield because he was brought to this country without having a say in the matter.
The federal government is also opposing an attempt by an undocumented immigrant to gain admission to the Florida bar. Unlike Mr. Garcia, Jose Manuel Godinez-Samperio qualified for the Department of Homeland Security’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and is now authorized to work in the U.S., according to his lawyer. The Justice Department said in court documents filed with the state Supreme Court that the authorization doesn’t entitle him to a professional license.
Larry DeSha, a former prosecutor for the State Bar of California, said Mr. Garcia should be denied admission because his immigration status could affect his ability to represent clients.
Mr. Garcia could be arrested and deported, leaving his clients suddenly without a lawyer, Mr. DeSha said. He also questioned whether Mr. Garcia could take the oath of an attorney to support the laws of the U.S. and California, given that he is in violation of a civil immigration statute.
More than half a million people have applied for the deferred action, or DACA, program since August 2012, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
A recent survey of 1,608 program participants found that 42% expect to obtain a master’s degree, a professional degree or a law degree.
Another 17% said they aspired to be medical doctors or Ph.D.s, according to the survey, conducted by Harvard University’s National UnDACAmented Research Project.
Caesar Vargas, who was brought to the U.S. illegally as a child, has applied for admission to the New York bar and is awaiting a decision. He is a part of a group called the Dream Bar Association, whose members, like himself, are undocumented but have received or are seeking law degrees. The group’s 13 members include law students in Arizona, Idaho and Texas, he said.
The dispute in California contrasts with the federal government’s confrontation with Arizona over a state law that created new immigration crimes and penalties. The U.S. Supreme Court in June struck down parts of the measure, ruling that they conflicted with federal government’s domain over immigration policy, as the Justice Department had argued.
In the California case, the script is flipped, with the state is arguing that the federal government has no authority to decide who receives a license to practice law. Such decisions rest with the California Supreme Court in an arrangement that “has long been held to be a core attribute of state sovereignty,” state Attorney General Kamala Harris wrote in a court brief.
The federal law cited by the Justice Department prohibits states from providing illegal immigrants with public benefits, unless states pass laws to contrary. The law was calculated to create political ramifications for state legislators who approved public benefits for illegal immigrants. It defines public benefit to include a “professional license…provided by an agency of a State or local government or by appropriated funds of a State or local government.”
The California Supreme Court operates using funds appropriated by the state, and thus it is barred from issuing Mr. Garcia his license, according to the Justice Department.
Mr. Garcia and his supporters say the law prohibits only professional licenses that are paid for or subsidized by appropriated state funds. But the state bar association, which takes the lead role in assessing whether candidates are fit to become an attorney, is funded by membership fees.
The California Supreme Court then grants admission based on the bar association’s recommendation, but no public funds are appropriated to the function, Ms. Harris argued in her brief.
( Palazzolo, Joe; WSJ, Sept 03, 2013)

I Believe In The 2nd Amendment. So Does Colorado and Illinois

  Second Amendment Rights Prevail in Colorado
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg Suffers Resounding Defeat – A historic grassroots effort by voters in Colorado’s Senate Districts 11 and 3 has resulted in the recall of Colorado Senate President John Morse (D) and Senator Angela Giron (D).
 The people of Colorado Springs and Pueblo sent a clear message to their elected officials that their primary job is to defend our rights and freedoms and that they are accountable to their constituents – not the dollars or social engineering agendas of anti-gun billionai

Recall proceedings began earlier this year after Sens. Morse and Giron voted for anti-gun legislation that restricted the ability of law-abiding residents to exercise their Second Amendment rights, including their inherent right to self-defense.
 This effort was driven by concerned citizens, who made phone calls, knocked on doors, and worked diligently to turn voters out in this historic effort.

The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) is proud to have stood with the men and women in these legislative districts who sent a clear message that their Second Amendment rights are not for sale in Colorado. We look forward to working with NRA-PVF “A” rated and endorsed Bernie Herpin (R) from Colorado Springs and NRA-PVF “AQ” rated and endorsed George Rivera (R) from Pueblo in the Colorado State Senate.

In an unusually forceful and straightforward opinion in the case of People v. Aguilar, the Supreme Court of Illinois unanimously held that the state's "comprehensive ban" on the "use of an operable firearm for self-defense outside the home" is invalid on its face under the Second Amendment.  The NRA had participated in the case with an amicus brief. 

The court surveyed the Supreme Court's recent Second Amendment decisions, as well as state and federal precedents from courts in Illinois.  Regarding the significance of the Supreme Court's opinions, it declared: "neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits the second amendment's protections to the home.  On the contrary, both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home."  It also characterized the Illinois law as "a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that is specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution…."  According to the court, "In no other context would we permit this, and we will not permit it here either."

While the court noted that "we are in no way saying that such a right is unlimited or is not subject to meaningful regulation," it did not condition its holding on any further action by the legislature.  It noted Illinois' recently-enacted Firearm Concealed Carry Act only in passing, stating that it was not "at issue in this case."

Invoking precedents from two federal appellate courts, the Illinois Supreme Court also held that the state's general ban on the possession of concealable firearms by minors does not run afoul of the Second Amendment.  Notably, one of the cases upon which the court relied for this portion of the opinion was National Rifle Ass'n of America, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms [&] Explosives, which upheld a federal prohibition on the sale of handguns by federally licensed dealers to adults aged 18 to 20.  The NRA has recently filed a brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision.  Twenty-two state attorneys general also filed a brief in support of NRA's efforts in that case.

While residents of Illinois eagerly await implementation of the state's new concealed carry licensing process, they can rest assured that under controlling precedent in both state and federal courts, their right to bear arms in self-defense is not a "privilege" bestowed upon them by the legislature but a fundamental right the state and its localities are bound to respect.

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. 

More than four million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime.

 The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. 

NBRA Filed Articles of Impeachment Against Obama

 

Black American Citizens File Articles of Impeachment Against Obama

Sarasota, FL- The National Black Republican Association (NBRA) based in Sarasota, FL, headed by Chairman Frances Rice, filed Articles of Impeachment against President Barack Obama with the following language.

We, black American citizens, in order to free ourselves and our fellow citizens from governmental tyranny, do herewith submit these Articles of Impeachment to Congress for the removal of President Barack H. Obama, aka, Barry Soetoro, from office for his attack on liberty and commission of egregious acts of despotism that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

On July 4, 1776, the founders of our nation declared their independence from governmental tyranny and reaffirmed their faith in independence with the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.

Asserting their right to break free from the tyranny of a nation that denied them the civil liberties that are our birthright, the founders declared:

“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”  -  Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

THE IMPEACHMENT POWER

Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

ARTICLE 1

He has covered up, delayed, impeded and obstructed the investigation of the Benghazi Battle.

Specific conduct includes: (1) failing to adequately secure the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi; (2) failing to send a response team to rescue embattled US citizens in Benghazi; (3) lying to the American people about why the US Consulate and the CIA annex were attacked in Benghazi; and (4) hiding from the media and congressional investigators the Central Intelligence Agency personnel and other wounded US citizens who were on the ground in Benghazi by scattering them throughout the United States, forcing them to adopt new identities and subjecting them to monthly polygraph tests.

Benghazi Battle elements that are under investigation:

On September 11, 2012, the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya was targeted in a premeditated, preplanned attack launched without warning by Islamist militants.

Footage of the attack broadcast in real time showed armed men attacking the consulate with rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, assault rifles, 14.5 mm anti-aircraft machine guns, truck mounted artillery, diesel canisters, and mortars.  It was not an act of savage mob violence, nor a spontaneous protest in response to an anti-Islamic video on YouTube.

In that attack, four American citizens were killed: US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; Information Officer Sean Smith; and two embassy security personnel, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs.  Ambassador Stevens is the first U.S. Ambassador killed in an attack since Adolph Dubs was killed in 1979.

ARTICLE 2

He has disclosed secret grand jury material by exposing the existence of a sealed indictment of one of the Benghazi attackers in violation of  Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that clearly states: “… no person may disclose the indictment’s existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.’’

ARTICLE 3

He has authorized and permitted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a division of the Justice Department, to conduct Operation Fast and Furious, wherein guns were sold to Mexican drug trafficking organizations that were used to kill innocent Mexican civilians and two rifles sold to a smuggler in January 2010 ended up at the scene of the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.

ARTICLE 4

He has authorized and permitted confidential income tax returns information from the Internal Revenue Service to be provided to unauthorized individuals, organizations and agencies.

ARTICLE 5

He has caused investigations and audits to be initiated or conducted by the Internal Revenue Service in a discriminatory manner, including harassment and intimidation of conservative, evangelical and Tea Party groups applying for non-profit status between 2010 and 2012. 

Elements of this illegal conduct include the facts that: (1) the head of the Internal Revenue Service tax-exempt organization division, Lois Lerner, admitted during a telephonic press event that illegal targeting occurred, then invoked her Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer questions before Congress about the targeting out of fear of self-incrimination; (2) two other career Internal Revenue Service employees stated that they acted at the behest of superiors in Washington -- Carter Hull, a retired Internal Revenue Service Attorney and Elizabeth Hofacre, an employee of the Cincinnati IRS office which oversaw tax-exempt applications; and (3) Carter Hull stated that he was directed to forward the targeted applications to, among others, one of only two political appointees in the Internal Revenue Service Chief Counsel William Wilkins.

ARTICLE 6

He has (1) authorized and permitted the National Security Agency to conduct or continue electronic surveillance of over 300 million average Americans; (2) given access to National Security Agency surveillance data to other intelligence units within the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secret Service, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security in violation of the law; and (3) conducted the surveillance of average Americans unconstrained by Congress, the United States Supreme Court or the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which has, to this date, functioned as a rubber stamp, having approved every request made of it in 2012 and rejecting only two of the 8,591 requests submitted between 2008 and 2012. 

ARTICLE 7

He has authorized and permitted the Department of Justice to wiretap and secretly obtain two months of telephone and e-mail records of Fox News Reporter James Rosen and over one hundred Associated Press journalists.

ARTICLE 8

He has thwarted Congress by (1) failing to enforce all or parts of laws duly enacted by Congress, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the Affordable Care Act; and (2) after Congress refused to pass his Dream Act, unilaterally issuing an executive order directing immigration officers to no longer deport an entire class of illegal immigrants who came here as children, regardless of individual circumstances, and to give them work-authorization permits.

ARTICLE 9

He has violated the Constitution when, on January 4, 2012, (1) he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, actions that were ruled unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which affirmed previous decisions by the Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit and the Third Circuit; and (2) he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

ARTICLE 10

He has intimidated whistleblowers and brought twice as many prosecutions against whistleblowers as all prior presidents combined.  Egregiously, while refusing to prosecute anyone for actual torture, he prosecuted former Central Intelligence Agency employee John Kiriakou for disclosing the torture program.

Wherefore Barack H. Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

###

Contact:

Frances Rice, Chairman

National Black Republican Association

4594 Chase Oaks Drive, Sarasota, FL  34241

‘Impeach Obama’ Ad Ran in Washington Times

Group planned to deliver copies of newspaper to Congress members today
Adan Salazar
Infowars.com
Sept. 3, 2013
A coalition of black citizens united under the banner of the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) are reportedly planning to run an ad in today’s edition of the Washington Times detailing why president Barack Obama should be impeached.

Click to view entire PDF.

The group said it planned to deliver the newspaper to each member of Congress when they reconvene today. Richard Swier, editor for the conservative site Watchdog Wire, issued the announcement yesterday.
According to Swier, “The Florida based National Black Republican Association has sent Articles of Impeachment to the Judiciary Committee in the US House of Representatives. The NBRA has decided to publish an advertisement in the Washington Times and provide a copy of the ad to every member of Congress as they return to work on Tuesday.”
“We, black American citizens,” the letter begins, “in order to free ourselves and our fellow citizens from governmental tyranny, do herewith submit these Articles of Impeachment to Congress for the removal of President Barack H. Obama, aka, Barry Soetoro from office for his attack on liberty and commission of egregious acts of despotism that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel and NBRA President Francis Rice encouraged people to download and distribute the PDF, stating, “Anyone may download and use the ad, which is camera ready, and pay for it to be in their local newspaper or magazine.”
As we noted last month when the group first issued its Articles detailing why Obama should be a prime candidate for impeachment proceedings, the group addresses both Democrat and Republican issues making their arguments harder to dismiss as merely partisan politics.
Article 6 berates Obama for his willingness to “conduct or continue electronic surveillance of over 300 million average Americans,” while Article 3 picks apart the Justice Department’s involvement in the Operation Fast And Furious gun-walking scandal “wherein guns were sold to Mexican drug trafficking organizations that were used to kill innocent Mexican civilians…”
Also included is the Obama administration’s intimidation and persecution of whistleblowers, “while refusing to prosecute anyone for actual torture.”
Even without an article addressing the president’s desire to dispatch military forces for use in a Syrian civil war without congressional approval – as was done in Libya, the ten articles assembled still make an extremely strong case for Obama’s impeachment.
According to Rice, “The PDF was created by the Washington Times for their use in publishing it in their paper.”
Download it here (.pdf)

This article was posted: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 1:29 pm

A New Breed Of Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli

Ad in Va. governor’s race spotlights Cuccinelli fight to clear wrongly convicted man

Video: A new ad for Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli tells the story of his role in the case of Thomas Haynesworth, who spent 27 years in prison for rapes he did not commit.

By Fredrick Kunkle, Tuesday, September 3, 12:01 AM E-mail the writer

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II’s gubernatorial campaign is launching an ad Tuesday highlighting his evolving views on crime and casting the conservative Republican as a compassionate lawman who fought to clear a wrongly convicted man.
The ad tells the story of Cuccinelli’s role in the case of Thomas Haynesworth, who spent 27 years in prison for rapes he did not commit. After DNA testing cleared Haynesworth in two sexual assaults, Cuccinelli and two state prosecutors championed Haynesworth’s case, pushing to obtain a “writ of actual innocence” for him even in two cases where no genetic testing was possible. Cuccinelli also gave Haynesworth a clerical job in the attorney general’s office after his release from prison.

More news about Va. politics

Cuccinelli ad details fight to clear wrongly convicted man

Fredrick Kunkle 12:01 AM ET

Ad in Virginia governor’s race highlights Ken Cuccinelli II’s role in helping a wrongly convicted man.

“The attorney general’s job is not convictions,” Cuccinelli says in the ad. “Today, we got justice.”
Haynesworth, who also appears on camera, says he never would have imagined that the attorney general would take a personal interest in his case.
“He didn’t have to get involved. But he said an injustice was done, and he was trying to correct it,” Haynesworth says. “To me, he’s a hell of a guy.”
With the Virginia governor’s race set to quicken its pace after the Labor Day weekend, Cuccinelli’s campaign wants to show a different side of the candidate than the one portrayed by his Democratic opponent, Terry McAuliffe.
McAuliffe, a businessman and former Democratic National Committee chairman who lives in McLean, has focused on depicting Cuccinelli as an extremist whose socially conservative agenda is out of step with Virginia. Cuccinelli has sought to soften his conservative image while portraying McAuliffe as a slick-talking and ethically challenged party operative whose business successes have been mostly imaginary.
Polls show that McAuliffe has taken a lead. They also show that many Virginians still know little about the men and that what is known has contributed to negative perceptions of both.
A recent Quinnipiac University survey found that 35 percent of likely voters had a favorable view of Cuccinelli, while 41 percent gave him an unfavorable rating and 22 percent were undecided. The same survey found that 34 percent had a favorable view of McAuliffe, 33 percent had an unfavorable view, and 31 percent were unsure.
Cuccinelli has attracted national attention as an activist attorney general, becoming the first to challenge the constitutionality of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, demanding records from a climate researcher at the University of Virginia, issuing an opinion that upheld stricter regulations for abortion clinics and beating back the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to regulate stormwater runoff in Fairfax County. The commonwealth’s inspector general also is investigating whether a deputy in Cuccinelli’s office improperly collaborated with energy companies in a dispute over gas royalties in southwest Virginia.
Haynesworth’s case was the first in which the state issued such a writ in a rape case without the certainty of DNA evidence. But Cuccinelli and the state prosecutors concluded that Haynesworth had been mistakenly connected to a 1984 rape.
Here is the ad’s script:
Cuccinelli: “In late 2010, a Democrat commonwealth’s attorney told me that he had this case that he thought I should take a look at.
“And he said, ‘Look, I think this guy might be innocent.’ ”
Haynesworth: “I never thought that the attorney general himself would be involved in a case like this.”
Cuccinelli: “After going through all of the evidence, I was convinced that Thomas Haynesworth was innocent. And I took that case on myself.”
Haynesworth: “He didn’t have to get involved. But he said an injustice was done and he was trying to correct it.”
News anchor 1: “Thomas Haynesworth was released from prison this week.”
News anchor 2: “Convicted on several rape charges despite his innocence.”
News anchor 3: “Spent 27 years behind bars for crimes he did not commit.”
Cuccinelli: “The attorney general’s job is not convictions. It’s justice. And today, we got justice.”