Pro.
A battlefield in the courtroom.
By Eugene Robinson
11/20/2009
Critics of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to bring the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and four other accused terrorists to New York for trial can't seriously believe the city will have trouble handling the expected "trial of the century" hoopla. The critics can't really think a judge is going to give Khalid Sheik Mohammed an open microphone to spew his jihadist views, or fear that a jury -- sitting just blocks from Ground Zero -- will look for reasons to let an accused mass murderer off on some technicality.
In the enemy's version of history, the West -- meaning the United States, Israel, Britain and what used to be called Christendom -- has a long history of exploiting the Muslim world. We occupy Muslim lands to steal their resources. We install corrupt lackeys as their rulers. For all our high and mighty talk about fairness and justice, we reserve these luxuries for ourselves. In this warped worldview, we deserve any atrocities that jihadist "warriors" might commit against us.
Protesting that all this is absurd and obscene does not make it go away. And our troops' military success actually helps to further the jihadist narrative about a "crusade" against Islam.
It's ironic that many of the officials and commentators who are so upset about the decision to give KSM a civilian trial were also quick to call the Fort Hood killings an act of terrorism. If the suspect, Maj. Nidal Hasan, is indeed a terrorist -- and not just a deranged man who snapped -- then his awful rampage helps demonstrate my point. Hasan reportedly considered the U.S. military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan a war against Islam, at one point arguing that Muslim soldiers should be excused from combat as conscientious objectors. In other words, he apparently bought at least part of the jihadist line. If killing a terrorist in Kandahar creates one in Killeen, we'll never make progress.
In this context, putting KSM and the others on trial in a civilian proceeding on U.S. soil is not just a duty but also an opportunity. It's a way to show that we do not have one system of justice for ourselves and another for Muslims, that we give defendants their day in court, that we insist they be vigorously defended by competent counsel -- that we really do practice what we preach.
Even if a military tribunal would be just as fair -- and a military court might be even more offended than a civilian one by the fact that KSM was subjected to waterboarding -- a trial by men and women in uniform would be seen as an extension of the "war on Islam."
Holder's choice is not without risk. The biggest question I have is whether an impartial jury could be impaneled in New York. And while I believe the chance of an acquittal is incredibly remote, if it happened, KSM would be kept in indefinite detention anyway -- a nightmare scenario.
But there's one more huge benefit to a civilian trial: It would show the preachers of hatred and their followers that we're not afraid of them or their poisonous ideas. It would show that they haven't changed us or our ideals -- and that they never will.
I say bring it on.
==================================================
Con.
Travesty in New York
By Charles Krauthammer
11/20/2009
For late-19th-century anarchists, terrorism was the "propaganda of the deed." And the most successful propaganda-by-deed in history was 9/11 -- not just the most destructive, but the most spectacular and telegenic.
And now its self-proclaimed architect, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, has been given by the Obama administration a civilian trial in New York. Just as the memory fades, 9/11 has been granted a second life -- and KSM, a second act: "9/11, The Director's Cut," narration by KSM.
September 11, 2001 had to speak for itself. A decade later, the deed will be given voice. KSM has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable -- a civilian trial in the media capital of the world -- from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.
So why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing this? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system, where the rule of law and the fair trial reign.
Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) "do not get convicted," asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. "Failure is not an option," replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn't the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure -- acquittal, hung jury -- is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.
Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning.
Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York -- what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the courtroom, making KSM a martyr and turning the judge, jury and spectators into fresh victims? -- it will endanger U.S. security. Civilian courts with broad rights of cross-examination and discovery give terrorists access to crucial information about intelligence sources and methods.
That's precisely what happened during the civilian New York trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. The prosecution was forced to turn over to the defense a list of 200 unindicted co-conspirators, including the name Osama bin Laden. "Within 10 days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum," wrote former attorney general Michael Mukasey, the presiding judge at that trial, "letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered."
Finally, there's the moral logic. It's not as if Holder opposes military commissions on principle. On the same day he sent KSM to a civilian trial in New York, Holder announced he was sending Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, (accused) mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole, to a military tribunal.
By what logic? In his congressional testimony Wednesday, Holder was utterly incoherent in trying to explain. In his Nov. 13 news conference, he seemed to be saying that if you attack a civilian target, as in 9/11, you get a civilian trial; a military target like the Cole, and you get a military tribunal.
What a perverse moral calculus. Which is the war crime -- an attack on defenseless civilians or an attack on a military target such as a warship, an accepted act of war that the United States itself has engaged in countless times?
By what possible moral reasoning, then, does KSM, who perpetrates the obvious and egregious war crime, receive the special protections and constitutional niceties of a civilian courtroom, while he who attacked a warship is relegated to a military tribunal?
Moreover, the incentive offered any jihadist is as irresistible as it is perverse: Kill as many civilians as possible on American soil and Holder will give you Miranda rights, a lawyer, a propaganda platform -- everything but your own blog.
Alternatively, Holder tried to make the case that he chose a civilian New York trial as a more likely venue for securing a conviction. An absurdity: By the time Barack Obama came to office, KSM was ready to go before a military commission, plead guilty and be executed. It's Obama who blocked a process that would have yielded the swiftest and most certain justice.
Indeed, the perfect justice. Whenever a jihadist volunteers for martyrdom, we should grant his wish. Instead, this one, the most murderous and unrepentant of all, gets to dance and declaim at the scene of his crime.
Holder himself told The Post that the coming New York trial will be "the trial of the century." The last such was the trial of O.J. Simpson.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Day Of Judgement for Webster Smith.
Those who were not present on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at the
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF)
450 E Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20442-0001
for the oral arguments in the case of United States v. Webster M. Smith, Case No. 08-0719/CG, missed a real burn-burner.
The judges of the USCAAF are civilian judges and sit as a single panel on all cases. Typically, all five judges participate in each case. The judges came out firing questions fast and furious to the two Appellate Attorneys. The first one up was Counsel for Webster Smith: Ronald C. Machen, Esquire. He was prepared and completely unflappable. He responded to every question put to him. When he was interrupted in mid sentence, he did not forge on and try to finish his thought; he immediately responded to the Judge's question. He gave reasoned responsive answers to every question. Some judges fired hard ball questions, and one judge even offer up a soft-ball question which was answered in the same serious manner.
Then came Counsel for U S Coast Guard: LT Emily P. Reuter, USCG. She had a cold or was recovering from the Swine Flu and began by pleading for leniency because of her weakened voice. It was downhill from there for her. She did not appear to give responsive answers to most of the questions put to her. She may have not even clearly understood some of the question before she attempted to respond to them. Frequently she appeared to retreat to her notes or her brief and read the holdings from cases that she had cited in her brief. Perhaps this was her first time arguing before the court or maybe this was a case that no one else wanted to argue, but there surely was not her finest hour.
This was an appeal from a General Court-Martial (GCM) conviction for going from place of duty, attempting to disobey an order, sodomy, extortion, and indecent assault. The ISSUE on Appeal was whether the military judge at the court-martial at the Coast Guard Academy violated Webster Smith’s constitutional right to confront his accusers by limiting his cross-examination of Shelley Roddenbush [SR], the government’s only witness, on three of the five charges.
Counsel for each side was allowed 20 minutes to present oral argument in the case.
The judges of the USCAAF are Judge Andrew S. Effron is the Chief Judge. The other four judges are Judge James E. Baker, Judge Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann, Judge Scott W. Stucky, and Judge Margaret A. Ryan, the most recent appointee.
The first issue that they tackled was the jurisdictional issue. The Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals had denied a request for reconsideration on 14 May 2008. It was not clear whether this was in the Appellate Record. There was a question of how many days had elapsed from the notification of the denial to Webster Smith's attorney and the date that Attorney Machen filed his appeal to the USCAAF. The Coast Guard had sent the Notice of Denial via DHL, a German company, rather than simply using the U. S. Mail as required by the Rules of Court. Apparently there are two time periods that may be relevant under Article 67(B) of the USCAAF's Rules. One is a 61 day rule and the other is a 95 day rule.
They kept coming back to this jurisdictional issue again and again. I do not think they hammered it out definitively during the hearing. Webster Smith's attorney said that it is not in the Record that he was notified on 14 May. LT Emily P. Reuter for the USCG said that it was in the Record. I am sure the USCAAF judges will settled the issue before they issue a decision.
This is troubling because I would hate for the judges to dodge the ISSUE on Appeal because of a technicality like jurisdiction. I could hear a couple of the judges contemplating doing just that. The tone and the tenor of the questions leads me to just that conclusion. It would be a shame after all this time and effort to be cheated out of a hard and definitive decision on the ultimate ISSUE.
That being said, it is my reasoned opinion that the judges of the USCAAF are poised to reverse the conviction of Webster Smith. I feel there is better than a 60-40% chance that they will reverse the conviction by a majority vote. Also, there is a 51-49% chance of a unanimous decision.
I think Judge Ryan is a swing vote. She gave Attorney Machen the hardest time. If at all possible she might do like Judge Lane I. McClelland of the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals and uphold the status quo. However, I do not think she would go out on a limb and write a dissenting opinion. If the other four judges split 2-2, I think she might side with the judges who determine that a reversal is warranted because the Trial Judge abused his discretion and committed reversible error.
Judge Baker appears most eager to reverse this conviction because Webster Smith was denied his right to a fair trial. He sees this as a fair trial issue. He believes that the trial court members had a right to know what the secret was that SR wanted Webster Smith to keep, that it was of a sexual nature, that she had recently lied about it being nonconsensual when it was really consensual oral sex with an enlisted man in Norfolf, Virginia. Also, SR wanted Webster Smith to go out and lie for her so badly that she was willing to pay him with sexual favors.
Judge Baker feels this was crucial evidence that the members were entitled to know. The exact nature of the secret was crucial to Webster Smith's defense. The Trial Judge relied upon Rule 412 of the Military Rules of Evidence and allowed into evidence only the fact that Webster Smith was privy to a secret that SR wanted him to keep; and that secret concerned something that could ruin her cadet and officer career in the Coast Guard.
Even though Judge Baker is a civilian, he might have served in the military. He pointed out that there are lots of secrets that can harm one's career. It could be a secret concerning having failed a physical training exercise; or, it could be a secret involving a wardrobe or a uniform violation. The members had no way of knowing the precise nature of the secret since the trial judge protected SR from more rigorous cross-examination. They did not know that when SR was faced with rumors she lied to limit her own culpability. Giving a limiting instruction to the members was not sufficient to cure the error. It was more than harmless error. It was big, earth shaking, reversible error. It violated the Sixth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
As Attorney Machen so eloquently stated, SR had used the secret as a sword and a shield. It shielded her from testifying at the Article 32 investigation, and it was the sword that she used at trial to stab Webster Smith through the heart. It killed him and his career in the Coast Guard. It is what the judges referred to as the Theory of Innoculation. The secret had innoculated SR from two investigations. It saved her from testifying at the Article 32 Investigation.
LT Emily P. Reuter wanted to argue that this was not a Fair Trial issue, but it was a pattern or practice issue. As such the Trial Judge was correct to limit cross-examination of SR to stop any evidence from coming in concerning her prior sexual history or her propensity to tell lies. She argued that the Defense's Theory of the case at trial was wrong for the evidence that they were trying to elicit, and that the Trial Judge correctly used Rule 412. If he erred, it was no more than harmless error. It was not Reversible Error. She was not persuasive.
Truth crushed to earth shall rise again. The essence of truth in this case is finally coming to the surface. From where I sit, the USCAAF stands ready to right a gigantic wrong. It wants to reconsecrate the Temple of Justice in the Coast Guard. It wants to heal the wound that was inflicted on the Sixth Amendment by the trial court and the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals.
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF)
450 E Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20442-0001
for the oral arguments in the case of United States v. Webster M. Smith, Case No. 08-0719/CG, missed a real burn-burner.
The judges of the USCAAF are civilian judges and sit as a single panel on all cases. Typically, all five judges participate in each case. The judges came out firing questions fast and furious to the two Appellate Attorneys. The first one up was Counsel for Webster Smith: Ronald C. Machen, Esquire. He was prepared and completely unflappable. He responded to every question put to him. When he was interrupted in mid sentence, he did not forge on and try to finish his thought; he immediately responded to the Judge's question. He gave reasoned responsive answers to every question. Some judges fired hard ball questions, and one judge even offer up a soft-ball question which was answered in the same serious manner.
Then came Counsel for U S Coast Guard: LT Emily P. Reuter, USCG. She had a cold or was recovering from the Swine Flu and began by pleading for leniency because of her weakened voice. It was downhill from there for her. She did not appear to give responsive answers to most of the questions put to her. She may have not even clearly understood some of the question before she attempted to respond to them. Frequently she appeared to retreat to her notes or her brief and read the holdings from cases that she had cited in her brief. Perhaps this was her first time arguing before the court or maybe this was a case that no one else wanted to argue, but there surely was not her finest hour.
This was an appeal from a General Court-Martial (GCM) conviction for going from place of duty, attempting to disobey an order, sodomy, extortion, and indecent assault. The ISSUE on Appeal was whether the military judge at the court-martial at the Coast Guard Academy violated Webster Smith’s constitutional right to confront his accusers by limiting his cross-examination of Shelley Roddenbush [SR], the government’s only witness, on three of the five charges.
Counsel for each side was allowed 20 minutes to present oral argument in the case.
The judges of the USCAAF are Judge Andrew S. Effron is the Chief Judge. The other four judges are Judge James E. Baker, Judge Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann, Judge Scott W. Stucky, and Judge Margaret A. Ryan, the most recent appointee.
The first issue that they tackled was the jurisdictional issue. The Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals had denied a request for reconsideration on 14 May 2008. It was not clear whether this was in the Appellate Record. There was a question of how many days had elapsed from the notification of the denial to Webster Smith's attorney and the date that Attorney Machen filed his appeal to the USCAAF. The Coast Guard had sent the Notice of Denial via DHL, a German company, rather than simply using the U. S. Mail as required by the Rules of Court. Apparently there are two time periods that may be relevant under Article 67(B) of the USCAAF's Rules. One is a 61 day rule and the other is a 95 day rule.
They kept coming back to this jurisdictional issue again and again. I do not think they hammered it out definitively during the hearing. Webster Smith's attorney said that it is not in the Record that he was notified on 14 May. LT Emily P. Reuter for the USCG said that it was in the Record. I am sure the USCAAF judges will settled the issue before they issue a decision.
This is troubling because I would hate for the judges to dodge the ISSUE on Appeal because of a technicality like jurisdiction. I could hear a couple of the judges contemplating doing just that. The tone and the tenor of the questions leads me to just that conclusion. It would be a shame after all this time and effort to be cheated out of a hard and definitive decision on the ultimate ISSUE.
That being said, it is my reasoned opinion that the judges of the USCAAF are poised to reverse the conviction of Webster Smith. I feel there is better than a 60-40% chance that they will reverse the conviction by a majority vote. Also, there is a 51-49% chance of a unanimous decision.
I think Judge Ryan is a swing vote. She gave Attorney Machen the hardest time. If at all possible she might do like Judge Lane I. McClelland of the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals and uphold the status quo. However, I do not think she would go out on a limb and write a dissenting opinion. If the other four judges split 2-2, I think she might side with the judges who determine that a reversal is warranted because the Trial Judge abused his discretion and committed reversible error.
Judge Baker appears most eager to reverse this conviction because Webster Smith was denied his right to a fair trial. He sees this as a fair trial issue. He believes that the trial court members had a right to know what the secret was that SR wanted Webster Smith to keep, that it was of a sexual nature, that she had recently lied about it being nonconsensual when it was really consensual oral sex with an enlisted man in Norfolf, Virginia. Also, SR wanted Webster Smith to go out and lie for her so badly that she was willing to pay him with sexual favors.
Judge Baker feels this was crucial evidence that the members were entitled to know. The exact nature of the secret was crucial to Webster Smith's defense. The Trial Judge relied upon Rule 412 of the Military Rules of Evidence and allowed into evidence only the fact that Webster Smith was privy to a secret that SR wanted him to keep; and that secret concerned something that could ruin her cadet and officer career in the Coast Guard.
Even though Judge Baker is a civilian, he might have served in the military. He pointed out that there are lots of secrets that can harm one's career. It could be a secret concerning having failed a physical training exercise; or, it could be a secret involving a wardrobe or a uniform violation. The members had no way of knowing the precise nature of the secret since the trial judge protected SR from more rigorous cross-examination. They did not know that when SR was faced with rumors she lied to limit her own culpability. Giving a limiting instruction to the members was not sufficient to cure the error. It was more than harmless error. It was big, earth shaking, reversible error. It violated the Sixth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
As Attorney Machen so eloquently stated, SR had used the secret as a sword and a shield. It shielded her from testifying at the Article 32 investigation, and it was the sword that she used at trial to stab Webster Smith through the heart. It killed him and his career in the Coast Guard. It is what the judges referred to as the Theory of Innoculation. The secret had innoculated SR from two investigations. It saved her from testifying at the Article 32 Investigation.
LT Emily P. Reuter wanted to argue that this was not a Fair Trial issue, but it was a pattern or practice issue. As such the Trial Judge was correct to limit cross-examination of SR to stop any evidence from coming in concerning her prior sexual history or her propensity to tell lies. She argued that the Defense's Theory of the case at trial was wrong for the evidence that they were trying to elicit, and that the Trial Judge correctly used Rule 412. If he erred, it was no more than harmless error. It was not Reversible Error. She was not persuasive.
Truth crushed to earth shall rise again. The essence of truth in this case is finally coming to the surface. From where I sit, the USCAAF stands ready to right a gigantic wrong. It wants to reconsecrate the Temple of Justice in the Coast Guard. It wants to heal the wound that was inflicted on the Sixth Amendment by the trial court and the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Judges Are Fading Away; The Bench Has Lost Its Appeal.
PITTSBURGH (AP) - U.S. District Judge Robert Cindrich has a lifetime job and could have retired in less than six years with full pay - though not a pension - of more than $155,000 a year.
But on Feb. 2, the 60-year-old jurist launched a new career as chief legal counsel with a hospital network, joining a record number of federal judges who observers say are retiring or resigning because of lagging pay and stringent guidelines that take away most of their discretion in criminal sentencings.
"We're losing more every year. (Those are) two principal reasons as I see it - and they apply to me, too," Cindrich said.
There are 877 federal judge positions that are lifetime appointments, from the Supreme Court on down to district courts, and 45 of those seats are vacant, according to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. Although a Senate logjam that has kept President Bush from getting his judicial appointees confirmed gets the headlines, observers say a more pressing long-term concern is the rate at which judges are leaving.
From 1991 through February 2002, more than 60 judges either retired or resigned to go into private practice, said Karen Redmond, spokeswoman for the U.S. Courts office, which studied the matter two years ago. Since then, another 10 federal judges have left the bench - compared to just five judges who resigned or retired during the entire decade of the 1960s, Redmond said.
A commission chaired by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker two years ago strongly urged Congress to boost the pay of federal judges, but a resulting bill that would have raised those salaries by 16.5 percent was defeated last session.
The two largest groups of federal judges - district and circuit court judges - annually make $154,700 and $164,000, respectively. The deans at top U.S. law schools earn more than $300,000, while law professors at those schools make more than $209,000, according to a study cited by the Volcker Commission.
Joe Kendall left his U.S. District Court job in Texas when he was 47 after 10 years on bench. He told The Third Branch, the newsletter for the federal courts system, that with two soon-to-be college-aged children, he couldn't afford not to sell his skills to the private sector.
"If federal judges were paid what an average partner in an average law firm in an average city was paid," Kendall said, "I'd still be on the bench."
Cindrich earned $133,600 when he was appointed in 1994. His $154,700 salary - which has been adjusted for cost of living just five out of his nine years on the bench - is worth about $11,000 less in real dollars today.
"Judges are supposed to be relatively smart people so it doesn't take us long to figure out, 'I'm going backward,'" Cindrich said. Added to that are hidden costs.
Federal judges don't get a pension. They can retire after age 65 once they have at least 15 years' service or take senior status and continue to work as long as they carry a caseload equal to 25 percent of those carried by judges on their court. Either way, they continue to receive full pay - but because it's not a pension, their dependents lose that income when the judge dies.
"That's one of the reasons a lot of us leave the bench," Cindrich said. "You compensate for it by buying a lot of life insurance."
Although Cindrich says the job is deeply satisfying, the changing face of federal law is taking its toll on that, too.
Developed in 1986, federal sentencing guidelines were designed so defendants in different areas of the country received similar sentences for similar crimes. But, combined with mandatory minimum sentences heralded as the solution to the "war on drugs," the guidelines too often result in lengthy sentences for what Cindrich calls "street criminals ... not the big drug runner flying in on jets from South America."
"When the law provides a result that is repugnant, we must still follow the law," Cindrich said. "And you can only do that so many times before you start to wonder, 'How many more times am I going to put my name on this sentence that I don't believe in?'
Judge London Steverson
London Eugene Livingston Steverson (born March 13, 1947) was one of the first two African Americans to graduate from the United States Coast Guard Academy in 1968. Later, as chief of the newly formed Minority Recruiting Section of the United States Coast Guard (USCG), he was charged with desegregating the Coast Guard Academy by recruiting minority candidates. He retired from the Coast Guard in 1988 and in 1990 was appointed to the bench as a Federal Administrative Law Judge with the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Social Security Administration.
Early Life and Education
Steverson was born and raised in Millington, Tennessee, the oldest of three children of Jerome and Ruby Steverson. At the age of 5 he was enrolled in the E. A. Harrold elementary school in a segregated school system. He later attended the all black Woodstock High School in Memphis, Tennessee, graduating valedictorian.
A Presidential Executive Order issued by President Truman had desegregated the armed forces in 1948,[1] but the service academies were lagging in officer recruiting. President Kennedy specifically challenged the United States Coast Guard Academy to tender appointments to Black high school students. London Steverson was one of the Black student to be offered such an appointment, and when he accepted the opportunity to be part of the class of 1968, he became the second African American to enter the previously all-white military academy. On June 4, 1968 Steverson graduated from the Coast Guard Academy with a BS degree in Engineering and a commission as an ensign in the U.S. Coast Guard.
In 1974, while still a member of the Coast Guard, Steverson entered The National Law Center of The George Washington University and graduated in 1977 with a Juris Doctor of Laws Degree.
USCG Assignments.
Steverson's first duty assignment out of the Academy was in Antarctic research logistical support. In July 1968 he reported aboard the Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) Glacier [2] (WAGB-4), an icebreaker operating under the control of the U.S. Navy, and served as a deck watch officer and head of the Marine Science Department. He traveled to Antarctica during two patrols from July 1968 to August 1969, supporting the research operations of the National Science Foundation's Antarctic Research Project in and around McMurdo Station. During the 1969 patrol the CGC Glacier responded to an international distress call from the Argentine icebreaker General SanMartin, which they freed.
He received another military assignment from 1970 to 1972 in Juneau, Alaska as a Search and Rescue Officer. Before being certified as an Operations Duty Officer, it was necessary to become thoroughly familiar with the geography and topography of the Alaskan remote sites. Along with his office mate, Ltjg Herbert Claiborne "Bertie" Pell, the son of Rhode Island Senator Claiborne Pell, Steverson was sent on a familiarization tour of Coast Guard, Navy and Air Force bases. The bases visited were Base Kodiak, Base Adak Island, and Attu Island, in the Aleutian Islands.[3]
Steverson was the Duty Officer on September 4, 1971 when an emergency call was received that an Alaska Airlines Boeing 727 airline passenger plane was overdue at Juneau airport. This was a Saturday and the weather was foggy with drizzling rain. Visibility was less than one-quarter mile. The 727 was en route to Seattle, Washington from Anchorage, Alaska with a scheduled stop in Juneau. There were 109 people on board and there were no survivors. Steverson received the initial alert message and began the coordination of the search and rescue effort. In a matter of hours the wreckage from the plane, with no survivors, was located on the side of a mountain about five miles from the airport. For several weeks the body parts were collected and reassembled in a staging area in the National Guard Armory only a few blocks from the Search and Rescue Center where Steverson first received the distress broadcast.[4]. Later a full investigation with the National Transportation Safety Board determined that the cause of the accident was equipment failure.[5]
Another noteworthy item is Steverson's involvement as an Operations Officer during the seizure of two Russian fishing vessels, the Kolevan and the Lamut for violating an international agreement prohibiting foreign vessels from fishing in United States territorial waters. The initial attempts at seizing the Russian vessels almost precipitated an international incident when the Russian vessels refused to proceed to a U. S. port, and instead sailed toward the Kamchatka Peninsula. Russian MIG fighter planes were scrambled, as well as American fighter planes from Elmendorf Air Force Base before the Russian vessels changed course and steamed back
But on Feb. 2, the 60-year-old jurist launched a new career as chief legal counsel with a hospital network, joining a record number of federal judges who observers say are retiring or resigning because of lagging pay and stringent guidelines that take away most of their discretion in criminal sentencings.
"We're losing more every year. (Those are) two principal reasons as I see it - and they apply to me, too," Cindrich said.
There are 877 federal judge positions that are lifetime appointments, from the Supreme Court on down to district courts, and 45 of those seats are vacant, according to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. Although a Senate logjam that has kept President Bush from getting his judicial appointees confirmed gets the headlines, observers say a more pressing long-term concern is the rate at which judges are leaving.
From 1991 through February 2002, more than 60 judges either retired or resigned to go into private practice, said Karen Redmond, spokeswoman for the U.S. Courts office, which studied the matter two years ago. Since then, another 10 federal judges have left the bench - compared to just five judges who resigned or retired during the entire decade of the 1960s, Redmond said.
A commission chaired by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker two years ago strongly urged Congress to boost the pay of federal judges, but a resulting bill that would have raised those salaries by 16.5 percent was defeated last session.
The two largest groups of federal judges - district and circuit court judges - annually make $154,700 and $164,000, respectively. The deans at top U.S. law schools earn more than $300,000, while law professors at those schools make more than $209,000, according to a study cited by the Volcker Commission.
Joe Kendall left his U.S. District Court job in Texas when he was 47 after 10 years on bench. He told The Third Branch, the newsletter for the federal courts system, that with two soon-to-be college-aged children, he couldn't afford not to sell his skills to the private sector.
"If federal judges were paid what an average partner in an average law firm in an average city was paid," Kendall said, "I'd still be on the bench."
Cindrich earned $133,600 when he was appointed in 1994. His $154,700 salary - which has been adjusted for cost of living just five out of his nine years on the bench - is worth about $11,000 less in real dollars today.
"Judges are supposed to be relatively smart people so it doesn't take us long to figure out, 'I'm going backward,'" Cindrich said. Added to that are hidden costs.
Federal judges don't get a pension. They can retire after age 65 once they have at least 15 years' service or take senior status and continue to work as long as they carry a caseload equal to 25 percent of those carried by judges on their court. Either way, they continue to receive full pay - but because it's not a pension, their dependents lose that income when the judge dies.
"That's one of the reasons a lot of us leave the bench," Cindrich said. "You compensate for it by buying a lot of life insurance."
Although Cindrich says the job is deeply satisfying, the changing face of federal law is taking its toll on that, too.
Developed in 1986, federal sentencing guidelines were designed so defendants in different areas of the country received similar sentences for similar crimes. But, combined with mandatory minimum sentences heralded as the solution to the "war on drugs," the guidelines too often result in lengthy sentences for what Cindrich calls "street criminals ... not the big drug runner flying in on jets from South America."
"When the law provides a result that is repugnant, we must still follow the law," Cindrich said. "And you can only do that so many times before you start to wonder, 'How many more times am I going to put my name on this sentence that I don't believe in?'
Judge London Steverson
London Eugene Livingston Steverson (born March 13, 1947) was one of the first two African Americans to graduate from the United States Coast Guard Academy in 1968. Later, as chief of the newly formed Minority Recruiting Section of the United States Coast Guard (USCG), he was charged with desegregating the Coast Guard Academy by recruiting minority candidates. He retired from the Coast Guard in 1988 and in 1990 was appointed to the bench as a Federal Administrative Law Judge with the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Social Security Administration.
Early Life and Education
Steverson was born and raised in Millington, Tennessee, the oldest of three children of Jerome and Ruby Steverson. At the age of 5 he was enrolled in the E. A. Harrold elementary school in a segregated school system. He later attended the all black Woodstock High School in Memphis, Tennessee, graduating valedictorian.
A Presidential Executive Order issued by President Truman had desegregated the armed forces in 1948,[1] but the service academies were lagging in officer recruiting. President Kennedy specifically challenged the United States Coast Guard Academy to tender appointments to Black high school students. London Steverson was one of the Black student to be offered such an appointment, and when he accepted the opportunity to be part of the class of 1968, he became the second African American to enter the previously all-white military academy. On June 4, 1968 Steverson graduated from the Coast Guard Academy with a BS degree in Engineering and a commission as an ensign in the U.S. Coast Guard.
In 1974, while still a member of the Coast Guard, Steverson entered The National Law Center of The George Washington University and graduated in 1977 with a Juris Doctor of Laws Degree.
USCG Assignments.
Steverson's first duty assignment out of the Academy was in Antarctic research logistical support. In July 1968 he reported aboard the Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) Glacier [2] (WAGB-4), an icebreaker operating under the control of the U.S. Navy, and served as a deck watch officer and head of the Marine Science Department. He traveled to Antarctica during two patrols from July 1968 to August 1969, supporting the research operations of the National Science Foundation's Antarctic Research Project in and around McMurdo Station. During the 1969 patrol the CGC Glacier responded to an international distress call from the Argentine icebreaker General SanMartin, which they freed.
He received another military assignment from 1970 to 1972 in Juneau, Alaska as a Search and Rescue Officer. Before being certified as an Operations Duty Officer, it was necessary to become thoroughly familiar with the geography and topography of the Alaskan remote sites. Along with his office mate, Ltjg Herbert Claiborne "Bertie" Pell, the son of Rhode Island Senator Claiborne Pell, Steverson was sent on a familiarization tour of Coast Guard, Navy and Air Force bases. The bases visited were Base Kodiak, Base Adak Island, and Attu Island, in the Aleutian Islands.[3]
Steverson was the Duty Officer on September 4, 1971 when an emergency call was received that an Alaska Airlines Boeing 727 airline passenger plane was overdue at Juneau airport. This was a Saturday and the weather was foggy with drizzling rain. Visibility was less than one-quarter mile. The 727 was en route to Seattle, Washington from Anchorage, Alaska with a scheduled stop in Juneau. There were 109 people on board and there were no survivors. Steverson received the initial alert message and began the coordination of the search and rescue effort. In a matter of hours the wreckage from the plane, with no survivors, was located on the side of a mountain about five miles from the airport. For several weeks the body parts were collected and reassembled in a staging area in the National Guard Armory only a few blocks from the Search and Rescue Center where Steverson first received the distress broadcast.[4]. Later a full investigation with the National Transportation Safety Board determined that the cause of the accident was equipment failure.[5]
Another noteworthy item is Steverson's involvement as an Operations Officer during the seizure of two Russian fishing vessels, the Kolevan and the Lamut for violating an international agreement prohibiting foreign vessels from fishing in United States territorial waters. The initial attempts at seizing the Russian vessels almost precipitated an international incident when the Russian vessels refused to proceed to a U. S. port, and instead sailed toward the Kamchatka Peninsula. Russian MIG fighter planes were scrambled, as well as American fighter planes from Elmendorf Air Force Base before the Russian vessels changed course and steamed back
Friday, October 16, 2009
Law Suit To Stop Swine Flu Mandatory Vaccination
New York medical staff took legal action Thursday 15 Oct to halt a massive swine flu inoculation program being rolled out across the United States, claiming the vaccines have not been properly tested.
Lawyers for the group filed a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a Washington federal court against government medical regulators they claim rushed H1N1 vaccines to the public without adequately testing their safety and efficacy.
"None of the vaccines against H1N1 have been properly tested," attorney Jim Turner, one of half a dozen lawyers working on the case.
The class action suit was brought on behalf of a group of doctors, nurses and other medical personnel in New York, where health care professionals who see patients are required to be vaccinated against H1N1, Turner said.
If the complaint is upheld, it would stop the roll-out of the H1N1 vaccine nationwide, said Turner, who accused public health officials of hyping the swine flu outbreak but failing to back up their stance with adequate testing of the vaccine.
"Officials have said the virus is so much like the ordinary flu virus that they don't need to do special new drug testing on it because it's just the same old virus with a minor change to it," said Turner.
"We're saying, if that's the case, then all the hype about this thing being a worldwide threat is misplaced and they've stampeded the state of New York into taking an action they never would have taken if it were just another flu."
Last week, some 2.4 million doses of nasal spray vaccine made of greatly weakened, but live, H1N1 virus were delivered to state and local health authorities around the United States.
This week, even larger stocks of injectable vaccine were delivered and administered to people in groups deemed to be at particular risk from swine flu, including children and health care professionals.
US public health officials want to vaccinate tens of millions of Americans by year's end against swine flu, which has claimed more than 4,500 lives worldwide since an outbreak of H1N1 was first reported in Mexico in April.
WASHINGTON REDSKIN'S CHEERLEADING HOPEFUL DEVELOPS NEUROLOGICAL PROBLEMS AFETR FLU SHOT.
ASHBURN, Va.(10/14/2009) -- Desiree Jennings thought it would be a good idea to get the seasonal flu shot. Her job offered incentives for it, and she didn't want to get sick.
Ten days after she got the shot at a Reston Safeway, she did get sick.
"I got flu-like symptoms -- nausea, vomiting, body aches, fever -- then was lethargic for a week and started blacking out," said Jennings, an AOL employee and Washington Redskins ambassador hoping to one day be a cheerleader for the team, the Loudoun Times-Mirror reported.
Doctors couldn't figure out why her ability to speak and walk were so adversely affected. She saw neurologists, physical therapists and psychologists.
Finally, doctors at Johns Hopkins figured it out, diagnosing dystonia, a rare neurological condition with no cure brought on by infections, brain trauma or, as is believed in her case, reaction to medication. It causes body jerks and abnormal or repetitive movements.
"A simple conversation with two people -- you and I could converse on the couch, and if the phone were to ring it would send her into a violent convulsion," said her husband, Brendan Jennings.
Strangely enough -- as she can't walk forward five feet without stumbling -- with some effort, she can perform one of her life's passions: running. And she walks backward with ease -- oddly empowering, now. After her ordeal began, "My insurance wasn't going to pay for another hospital visit. Matter of fact, they called us as we were driving to Johns Hopkins not to offer a specialist but instead to offer a hospital bed and a wheelchair for our house. I told them I wanted to know what was happening to me and that I didn't want to be in a wheelchair."
Her reaction is one in a million, doctors said.
"I would've much rather won the lottery and bought that ticket instead of gotten the flu shot if I knew that risk existed," she said.
Know the Difference between Cold and H1N1 Flu Symptoms
Fever
Fever is rare with a cold.
Fever is usually present with the flu in up to 80% of all flu cases. A temperature of 100°F or higher for 3 to 4 days is associated with the flu.
Coughing
A hacking, productive (mucus- producing) cough is often present with a cold.
A non-productive (non-mucus producing) cough is usually present with the flu (sometimes referred to as dry cough).
Aches
Slight body aches and pains can be part of a cold.
Severe aches and pains are common with the flu.
Stuffy Nose
Stuffy nose is commonly present with a cold and typically resolves spontaneously within a week.
Stuffy nose is not commonly present with the flu.
Chills
Chills are uncommon with a cold.
60% of people who have the flu experience chills.
Tiredness
Tiredness is fairly mild with a cold.
Tiredness is moderate to severe with the flu.
Sneezing
Sneezing is commonly present with a cold.
Sneezing is not common with the flu.
Sudden Symptoms
Cold symptoms tend to develop over a few days.
The flu has a rapid onset within 3-6 hours. The flu hits hard and includes sudden symptoms like high fever, aches and pains.
Headache
A headache is fairly uncommon with a cold.
A headache is very common with the flu, present in 80% of flu cases.
Sore Throat
Sore throat is commonly present with a cold.
Sore throat is not commonly present with the flu.
Chest Discomfort
Chest discomfort is mild to moderate with a cold.
Chest discomfort is often severe with the flu.
Swine Flu Prevention
Prevent Swine Flu - Good Advice
Neti pots and sinus rinse kits are available at the drug store and relatively inexpensive….under $15.
Dr. Vinay Goyal is an MBBS,DRM,DNB (Intensivist and Thyroid specialist) having clinical experience of over 20 years. He has worked in institutions like Hinduja Hospital , Bombay Hospital , SaifeeHospital , Tata Memorial etc. Presently, he is heading our Nuclear Medicine Department and Thyroid clinic at Riddhivinayak Cardiac and Critical Centre, Malad (W).
The following message given by him, I feel makes a lot of sense and is important for all to know
The only portals of entry are the nostrils and mouth/throat. In a global epidemic of this nature, it's almost impossible to avoid coming into contact with H1N1 in spite of all precautions. Contact with H1N1 is not so much of a problem as proliferation is.
While you are still healthy and not showing any symptoms of H1N1 infection, in order to prevent proliferation, aggravation of symptoms and development of secondary infections, some very simple steps, not fully highlighted in most official communications, can be practiced (instead of focusing on how to stock N95 or Tamiflu):
1. Frequent hand-washing (well highlighted in all official communications).
2. "Hands-off-the-face" approach. Resist all temptations to touch any part of face (unless you want to eat, bathe or slap).
3. *Gargle twice a day with warm salt water (use Listerine if you don't trust salt)... *H1N1 takes 2-3 days after initial infection in the throat/ nasal cavity to proliferate and show characteristic symptoms. Simple gargling prevents proliferation. In a way, gargling with salt water has the same effect on a healthy individual that Tamiflu has on an infected o ne. Don't underestimate this simple, inexpensive and powerful preventative method.
4. Similar to 3 above, *clean your nostrils at least once every day with warm salt water. *Not everybody may be good at Jala Neti or Sutra Neti (very good Yoga asanas to clean nasal cavities), but *blowing the nose hard once a day and swabbing both nostrils with cotton buds dipped in warm salt water is very effective in bringing down viral population.*
5. *Boost your natural immunity with foods that are rich in Vitamin C (Amla and other citrus fruits). *If you have to supplement with Vitamin C tablets, make sure that it also has Zinc to boost absorption.
6. *Drink as much of warm liquids (tea, coffee, etc) as you can. *Drinking warm liquids has the same effect as gargling, but in the reverse direction. They wash off proliferating viruses from the throat into the stomach where they cannot survive, proliferate or do any harm.
Lawyers for the group filed a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a Washington federal court against government medical regulators they claim rushed H1N1 vaccines to the public without adequately testing their safety and efficacy.
"None of the vaccines against H1N1 have been properly tested," attorney Jim Turner, one of half a dozen lawyers working on the case.
The class action suit was brought on behalf of a group of doctors, nurses and other medical personnel in New York, where health care professionals who see patients are required to be vaccinated against H1N1, Turner said.
If the complaint is upheld, it would stop the roll-out of the H1N1 vaccine nationwide, said Turner, who accused public health officials of hyping the swine flu outbreak but failing to back up their stance with adequate testing of the vaccine.
"Officials have said the virus is so much like the ordinary flu virus that they don't need to do special new drug testing on it because it's just the same old virus with a minor change to it," said Turner.
"We're saying, if that's the case, then all the hype about this thing being a worldwide threat is misplaced and they've stampeded the state of New York into taking an action they never would have taken if it were just another flu."
Last week, some 2.4 million doses of nasal spray vaccine made of greatly weakened, but live, H1N1 virus were delivered to state and local health authorities around the United States.
This week, even larger stocks of injectable vaccine were delivered and administered to people in groups deemed to be at particular risk from swine flu, including children and health care professionals.
US public health officials want to vaccinate tens of millions of Americans by year's end against swine flu, which has claimed more than 4,500 lives worldwide since an outbreak of H1N1 was first reported in Mexico in April.
WASHINGTON REDSKIN'S CHEERLEADING HOPEFUL DEVELOPS NEUROLOGICAL PROBLEMS AFETR FLU SHOT.
ASHBURN, Va.(10/14/2009) -- Desiree Jennings thought it would be a good idea to get the seasonal flu shot. Her job offered incentives for it, and she didn't want to get sick.
Ten days after she got the shot at a Reston Safeway, she did get sick.
"I got flu-like symptoms -- nausea, vomiting, body aches, fever -- then was lethargic for a week and started blacking out," said Jennings, an AOL employee and Washington Redskins ambassador hoping to one day be a cheerleader for the team, the Loudoun Times-Mirror reported.
Doctors couldn't figure out why her ability to speak and walk were so adversely affected. She saw neurologists, physical therapists and psychologists.
Finally, doctors at Johns Hopkins figured it out, diagnosing dystonia, a rare neurological condition with no cure brought on by infections, brain trauma or, as is believed in her case, reaction to medication. It causes body jerks and abnormal or repetitive movements.
"A simple conversation with two people -- you and I could converse on the couch, and if the phone were to ring it would send her into a violent convulsion," said her husband, Brendan Jennings.
Strangely enough -- as she can't walk forward five feet without stumbling -- with some effort, she can perform one of her life's passions: running. And she walks backward with ease -- oddly empowering, now. After her ordeal began, "My insurance wasn't going to pay for another hospital visit. Matter of fact, they called us as we were driving to Johns Hopkins not to offer a specialist but instead to offer a hospital bed and a wheelchair for our house. I told them I wanted to know what was happening to me and that I didn't want to be in a wheelchair."
Her reaction is one in a million, doctors said.
"I would've much rather won the lottery and bought that ticket instead of gotten the flu shot if I knew that risk existed," she said.
Know the Difference between Cold and H1N1 Flu Symptoms
Fever
Fever is rare with a cold.
Fever is usually present with the flu in up to 80% of all flu cases. A temperature of 100°F or higher for 3 to 4 days is associated with the flu.
Coughing
A hacking, productive (mucus- producing) cough is often present with a cold.
A non-productive (non-mucus producing) cough is usually present with the flu (sometimes referred to as dry cough).
Aches
Slight body aches and pains can be part of a cold.
Severe aches and pains are common with the flu.
Stuffy Nose
Stuffy nose is commonly present with a cold and typically resolves spontaneously within a week.
Stuffy nose is not commonly present with the flu.
Chills
Chills are uncommon with a cold.
60% of people who have the flu experience chills.
Tiredness
Tiredness is fairly mild with a cold.
Tiredness is moderate to severe with the flu.
Sneezing
Sneezing is commonly present with a cold.
Sneezing is not common with the flu.
Sudden Symptoms
Cold symptoms tend to develop over a few days.
The flu has a rapid onset within 3-6 hours. The flu hits hard and includes sudden symptoms like high fever, aches and pains.
Headache
A headache is fairly uncommon with a cold.
A headache is very common with the flu, present in 80% of flu cases.
Sore Throat
Sore throat is commonly present with a cold.
Sore throat is not commonly present with the flu.
Chest Discomfort
Chest discomfort is mild to moderate with a cold.
Chest discomfort is often severe with the flu.
Swine Flu Prevention
Prevent Swine Flu - Good Advice
Neti pots and sinus rinse kits are available at the drug store and relatively inexpensive….under $15.
Dr. Vinay Goyal is an MBBS,DRM,DNB (Intensivist and Thyroid specialist) having clinical experience of over 20 years. He has worked in institutions like Hinduja Hospital , Bombay Hospital , SaifeeHospital , Tata Memorial etc. Presently, he is heading our Nuclear Medicine Department and Thyroid clinic at Riddhivinayak Cardiac and Critical Centre, Malad (W).
The following message given by him, I feel makes a lot of sense and is important for all to know
The only portals of entry are the nostrils and mouth/throat. In a global epidemic of this nature, it's almost impossible to avoid coming into contact with H1N1 in spite of all precautions. Contact with H1N1 is not so much of a problem as proliferation is.
While you are still healthy and not showing any symptoms of H1N1 infection, in order to prevent proliferation, aggravation of symptoms and development of secondary infections, some very simple steps, not fully highlighted in most official communications, can be practiced (instead of focusing on how to stock N95 or Tamiflu):
1. Frequent hand-washing (well highlighted in all official communications).
2. "Hands-off-the-face" approach. Resist all temptations to touch any part of face (unless you want to eat, bathe or slap).
3. *Gargle twice a day with warm salt water (use Listerine if you don't trust salt)... *H1N1 takes 2-3 days after initial infection in the throat/ nasal cavity to proliferate and show characteristic symptoms. Simple gargling prevents proliferation. In a way, gargling with salt water has the same effect on a healthy individual that Tamiflu has on an infected o ne. Don't underestimate this simple, inexpensive and powerful preventative method.
4. Similar to 3 above, *clean your nostrils at least once every day with warm salt water. *Not everybody may be good at Jala Neti or Sutra Neti (very good Yoga asanas to clean nasal cavities), but *blowing the nose hard once a day and swabbing both nostrils with cotton buds dipped in warm salt water is very effective in bringing down viral population.*
5. *Boost your natural immunity with foods that are rich in Vitamin C (Amla and other citrus fruits). *If you have to supplement with Vitamin C tablets, make sure that it also has Zinc to boost absorption.
6. *Drink as much of warm liquids (tea, coffee, etc) as you can. *Drinking warm liquids has the same effect as gargling, but in the reverse direction. They wash off proliferating viruses from the throat into the stomach where they cannot survive, proliferate or do any harm.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Mixed Race Couple Denied Marriage License in NOLA.
NEW ORLEANS – A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."
Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."
If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.
Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years.
Beth Humphrey, 30, and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.
Humphrey, an account manager for a marketing firm, said she and McKay, a welder, just returned to Louisiana. She plans to enroll in the University of New Orleans to pursue a masters degree in minority politics.
"That was one thing that made this so unbelievable," she said. "It's not something you expect in this day and age."
Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.
"We are looking forward to having children," Humphrey said. "And all our friends and co-workers have been very supportive. Except for this, we're typical happy newlyweds."
"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. "The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry." (Loving v Virginia)
The ACLU sent a letter to the Louisiana Judiciary Committee, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and recommending "the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice."
"He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it," Schwartzmann said.
According to the clerk of court's office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.
Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.
The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk's office.
"I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."
Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."
If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.
Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years.
Beth Humphrey, 30, and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.
Humphrey, an account manager for a marketing firm, said she and McKay, a welder, just returned to Louisiana. She plans to enroll in the University of New Orleans to pursue a masters degree in minority politics.
"That was one thing that made this so unbelievable," she said. "It's not something you expect in this day and age."
Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.
"We are looking forward to having children," Humphrey said. "And all our friends and co-workers have been very supportive. Except for this, we're typical happy newlyweds."
"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. "The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry." (Loving v Virginia)
The ACLU sent a letter to the Louisiana Judiciary Committee, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and recommending "the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice."
"He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it," Schwartzmann said.
According to the clerk of court's office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.
Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.
The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk's office.
"I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Federal Judge Refuses to Take New Criminal Cases.
A federal judge in Milwaukee has taken the unusual step of refusing to accept new criminal cases and recusing himself from existing ones, in a move observers say is about politics, impropriety and, possibly, hurt feelings.
Federal Court Clerk Jon Sanfilippo says the way he sees it, the reason Judge J.P. Stadtmueller is refusing criminal cases "really springs from one case."
Sanfilippo, the only person at the federal courthouse in downtown Milwaukee who was willing to talk about the situation, says it all started after a ruling in July by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Prosecutors thought Stadtmueller showed bias in a gun case and took the rare move of asking the appeals court to remove him, which it did. Stadtmueller accused the U.S. attorney's office of judge-shopping.
The judge declined repeated requests for interviews; neither his colleagues on the federal bench nor the interim U.S. attorney for Milwaukee would comment.
Sanfilippo says since that ruling, Stadtmueller stopped taking new criminal cases from the government and recused himself from 22 existing ones. He is still taking civil cases, however.
"He believes that he's acting appropriately under the circumstances, trying to provide a situation where there's no problem in terms of perception," Sanfilippo says, "and as this has been unfolding, he's been very adamant about making sure he has a full caseload."
Frustration Over Types Of Cases
Before Stadtmueller was given a lifetime appointment to the federal bench in 1987, he ran the U.S. attorney's office in Milwaukee. Over the years, he has criticized the type of cases his successors have brought to federal court.
When Stadtmueller was a prosecutor, most federal cases involved white-collar crimes. Now, there are many more gun and drug cases, and the judge's frustration is apparent in court documents.
In taking Stadtmueller off the gun case, the appeals court ruled that he broke judicial rules by suggesting a plea bargain.
Stadtmueller had questioned the government's decision to bring the case to federal court, calling it "an embarrassment to the justice system." Documents also show Stadtmueller sought to avoid a conviction that would have sent the defendant to prison for at least 15 years.
'A Better Way'
Robin Shellow, a criminal defense attorney in Milwaukee, says she has seen a growing concern among judges over the federalization of street crime.
"In virtually every criminal sentencing in a drug case, Judge Stadtmueller remarks on the number of people who are in federal prisons on that particular day," she says.
Shellow says she has represented dozens of youths who were convicted of gun crimes and sent to prison for life.
"I think that has got to weigh heavily on judges who have been around for a long time and who are saying there's got to be a better way," she says.
But is that his job?
Janine Geske, a law professor at Marquette University and a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, says each judge has his or her own method of determining how best to achieve justice in the court.
"Judge Stadtmueller had the position in the U.S. attorney's office, and I'm sure it's tough when he sees things that he thinks, if he had been in that position, he would have done differently," Geske says.
Amid the speculation, Stadtmueller has not publicly explained why he is passing on criminal cases.
This could go on for a while. All the federal criminal cases in Milwaukee are now distributed among three judges instead of four. Stadtmueller told the court clerk he will resume taking criminal cases once a permanent U.S. attorney for Milwaukee is appointed.
That, however, could be months away
Federal Court Clerk Jon Sanfilippo says the way he sees it, the reason Judge J.P. Stadtmueller is refusing criminal cases "really springs from one case."
Sanfilippo, the only person at the federal courthouse in downtown Milwaukee who was willing to talk about the situation, says it all started after a ruling in July by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Prosecutors thought Stadtmueller showed bias in a gun case and took the rare move of asking the appeals court to remove him, which it did. Stadtmueller accused the U.S. attorney's office of judge-shopping.
The judge declined repeated requests for interviews; neither his colleagues on the federal bench nor the interim U.S. attorney for Milwaukee would comment.
Sanfilippo says since that ruling, Stadtmueller stopped taking new criminal cases from the government and recused himself from 22 existing ones. He is still taking civil cases, however.
"He believes that he's acting appropriately under the circumstances, trying to provide a situation where there's no problem in terms of perception," Sanfilippo says, "and as this has been unfolding, he's been very adamant about making sure he has a full caseload."
Frustration Over Types Of Cases
Before Stadtmueller was given a lifetime appointment to the federal bench in 1987, he ran the U.S. attorney's office in Milwaukee. Over the years, he has criticized the type of cases his successors have brought to federal court.
When Stadtmueller was a prosecutor, most federal cases involved white-collar crimes. Now, there are many more gun and drug cases, and the judge's frustration is apparent in court documents.
In taking Stadtmueller off the gun case, the appeals court ruled that he broke judicial rules by suggesting a plea bargain.
Stadtmueller had questioned the government's decision to bring the case to federal court, calling it "an embarrassment to the justice system." Documents also show Stadtmueller sought to avoid a conviction that would have sent the defendant to prison for at least 15 years.
'A Better Way'
Robin Shellow, a criminal defense attorney in Milwaukee, says she has seen a growing concern among judges over the federalization of street crime.
"In virtually every criminal sentencing in a drug case, Judge Stadtmueller remarks on the number of people who are in federal prisons on that particular day," she says.
Shellow says she has represented dozens of youths who were convicted of gun crimes and sent to prison for life.
"I think that has got to weigh heavily on judges who have been around for a long time and who are saying there's got to be a better way," she says.
But is that his job?
Janine Geske, a law professor at Marquette University and a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, says each judge has his or her own method of determining how best to achieve justice in the court.
"Judge Stadtmueller had the position in the U.S. attorney's office, and I'm sure it's tough when he sees things that he thinks, if he had been in that position, he would have done differently," Geske says.
Amid the speculation, Stadtmueller has not publicly explained why he is passing on criminal cases.
This could go on for a while. All the federal criminal cases in Milwaukee are now distributed among three judges instead of four. Stadtmueller told the court clerk he will resume taking criminal cases once a permanent U.S. attorney for Milwaukee is appointed.
That, however, could be months away
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Injunction To Stop Mandatory Flu Vaccinations.
Preliminary Injunction to Halt Mandatory Flu Vaccination in the U.S. Has Been Issued (sic, appears imminent)
by Barbara Minton, Natural Health Editor
(NaturalNews) A Preliminary Injunction to stop mandatory vaccinations has been issued in the United States District Court of New Jersey. This comes after a federal lawsuit opposing forced vaccines was filed in that court by Tim Vawter, pro se attorney, on July 31st with the federal government as defendant. When the judge signs the Preliminary Injunction, it will stop the federal government from forcing anyone in any state to take flu vaccine against their will. It will also prevent a state or local government from forcibly vaccinating anyone, and forbid any person who is not vaccinated from being denied any services or constitutional rights. Vawter's filings included a Complaint, and several pages of evidentiary Exhibits.
Vawter's legal papers have been written not only for filing in federal court, but additionally so they can be looked at by activists around the world for ideas on filing lawsuits in their own countries to help stop forced vaccinations. Vawter believes that as the truth of the dangers of flu vaccines continues to become known, banning the forced use of them will eventually succeed on a worldwide basis. He cautions people to avoid fear and keep themselves focused on the task of blocking forced vaccination.
Preliminary Injunction will immediately halt mandatory vaccinations in the U.S.
The Court, having heard the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and read the papers in its support, states in the Preliminary Injunction that it appears the federal government has engaged in some amount of negligence with regards to failure to properly investigate the safety of the flu vaccines scheduled for use in late 2009-2010, and the evidence submitted does warrant a more thorough investigation into the safety of the flu vaccines.
The Court ordered that the government shall be forbidden from forcing any person to be required to take any influenza vaccination against that person's free will and free choice. The government will not allow any state or local government, or any party, to force any person to be required to take any influenza vaccination against that person's free will and free choice.
It is further ordered that the government shall not deny any constitutional rights to any person who has not received a flu vaccine, nor allow any doctor, company, or other party to deny any of these people services such as medical care, attending school, or similar services or freedoms, nor can the government allow any doctors, companies, or other parties, to deny any of these people their constitutional rights. The only exception to this, where a person who does not get a flu vaccination might be denied certain services, shall be after it is shown in a court of law, with clear and convincing evidence, on an individual case-by-case basis, where due process and a right to a defense is allowed. Only then can a person be denied a particular service because the person did not receive a flu vaccine.
U.S. government sued for gross negligence and violation of the Constitution
In his Cause of Action, Vawter charged that the federal government has engaged in gross negligence by funding and promoting flu vaccines that are proven to be dangerous and manufactured with little oversight. The vaccines scheduled for use in late 2009 and 2010 contain heavy metals including thimerosal mercury, which have been proven to cause autism in children with lowered immune systems, and other dangerous and toxic ingredients. The federal government has stated it will force these flu vaccines onto the American public against their will, under a document signed by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
He further charged that the vaccine makers stand to earn billions of dollars selling vaccines, and are already spending tens of millions advertising a "Phase 6 Pandemic" that the evidence shows does not really exist. The federal government has not required the World Health Organization (WHO) to show evidence of such a pandemic. There has been no collection of facts, sworn testimony, witnesses being questioned, hearings being held, or lie detector tests being given when preposterous statements have been made. The WHO declared a massive "Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic", even though only a few hundred people worldwide had so far died of this swine flu virus, and when far more people die each year of regular flu.
Vawter noted there is a preponderance of evidence to show that the federal government so poorly trained its employees that they eagerly agreed with the unsubstantiated claims of the WHO in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Forced vaccination would violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the government to enter homes and force people to be vaccinated, or to forcibly remove people to another location for vaccination. It would also violate Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights by depriving people of liberty without due process of law.
Vawter charged that the federal government has engaged in gross negligence by failing to properly investigate factual evidence submitted by esteemed medical professions over many years which proves flu vaccines have caused serious damage to people. The CDC has stated that thimerosal mercury is being used in the new flu vaccines being prepared.
The government has failed to investigate profiteering. Billions of dollars in vaccine sales can cause organizations to falsify threats so as to cause unwarranted public hysteria leading to forced vaccinations.
The government is guilty of gross negligence because its employees failed to properly investigate the release of a case of live swine flu virus. One of the main companies the government deals with, Baxter Vaccines, was apparently involved in the transporting of live bird flu virus that was released on a public train earlier this year. A lab technician with the Swiss National Center for Influenza in Geneva had traveled to Zurich to collect eight ampoules, five of which were filled with the H1N1 swine flu virus. However, failure of the dry ice in their container allowed pressure to build up, and the ampoules exploded as the train was pulling into a station.
The highly reputable UK newspaper "the Telegraph" reported on July 2nd that flu vaccines tested on homeless people caused twenty-one of them to die.
Vawter charged there is a preponderance of evidence to show that government will not provide people being vaccinated with a list of the vaccine ingredients and possible negative side effects before they are vaccinated. Most of the public will not know this flu vaccine contains thimerosal mercury.
Vawter submitted an Order to force the government to publish vaccine ingredients and side effects, and to give this information to everyone who takes a flu vaccine, and do so at least 3 days prior to their vaccination. A denial of this order would violate Plaintiff's rights to demand the government obey the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by requiring it to engage in freedom of speech. The First Amendment not only allows a citizen to have freedom of speech himself, but it allows a citizen to demand his government engage in freedom of speech when it is promoting the use of such as these vaccinations to the public.
The government proclamation stating a person cannot sue for any damages he receives from the flu vaccine, completely bypasses the congress and the court system in violation of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution which grants the right to sue to recover for damages. Vawter submitted an Order to deem unconstitutional any proclamation, rule or similar law that forbids people from suing for damages resulting from the vaccines of 2009 and 2010.
Vawter is seeking damages of $100,000.00 as the result of suffering depression, extreme anxiety and emotional duress when his nephew began life as a healthy, happy baby boy, only to come down with autism after being given baby vaccines that contained thimerosal mercury. For years his nephew has struggled with this incredibly debilitating, preventable condition. According to Vawter, a claim may be submitted not only by his nephew, but by others who have suffered damages from vaccinations.
Vawter claimed that several rules and proclamations detailed in the lawsuit are unconstitutional and claimed that if they are not stricken and amended, he and other people who may not be aware of the offenses or who may be unable to sue, will suffer pending "injury-in-fact" damages. As attorneys and law firms join this lawsuit, recovery requests will reveal the names of additional people who have suffered injuries so they can be contacted about recovering damages, as the law allows.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction claims some vaccines may contain live virus
Although much of the Preliminary Injunction is a reiteration of information contained in his lawsuit, there are a few additions of note. Vawter includes in his grounds the fact that since the manufacturing of flu vaccines involves first destroying a live flu virus, there is a possibility that live flu virus will be in some of the vaccines, causing even more damages to people who receive it, and spreading the virus.
He asked the Court to use federal law enforcement to initiate its own civil and criminal investigation into flu vaccine safety issue, as federal law allows for this.
He noted the days when Hitler's Nazi doctors forcibly gave shots containing adjuvants to innocent people, and reminded that Nazi ideology was stamped out precisely because of those atrocities. He claims it is unwise for the U.S. government to follow in the same path as the Nazis. America is a nation of civil laws, not a dictatorship that gives proclamations bypassing the courts and congress to demand forced vaccinations containing hazardous ingredients known to cause damages.
The forced vaccination debacle of 1976 that the government had to halt because it was injuring more people than it was protecting shows vaccine makers should not be allowed to force their vaccines on people who have no recourse. The prohibition against lawsuits by the injured gives the green light to vaccine makers to include thimerosal mercury in their new flu vaccines. When the Order deeming the forbidding of lawsuits as unconstitutional is given, any defendant will have to present factual proof in federal court, not just hearsay or advertising slogans, as so why the Constitution says it is okay to forbid people from suing to recover damages resulting from flu vaccine.
Medical professionals argue flu vaccines harm not just certain people but almost everyone who receives them. Yet the government has ignored factual evidence proving this, and instead listens to a profit run group of vaccine manufacturers who stand to earn billions of dollars as the government orders forced vaccinations on the public for the coming flu season.
The government has published a chart listing the WHO's "Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic" as being equal to an earthquake measuring 8.0 on the Richter Scale. This chart is preposterous because there are no factual criteria required for an "Influenza Pandemic" to be declared by the United Nations' WHO. The United Nations is a collective of numerous nations, most of whom have very different laws than the U.S. has, and where their leaders can simply declare or proclaim things to be so without judicial review, and their population must obey.
Glaxo Smith Kline stands to make $4 billion from its two flu vaccine drugs. CEO Andrew Witty has said his company has been preparing for a flu pandemic for thee years and has spent over $1 billion to expand its factories. Executives from Glaxo, Baxter, Novartis, and Sanofi Pasteur had seats at the advisory group that on July 13th recommended mandatory H1N1 vaccination for everyone in all 194 countries belonging to the WHO.
The fear mongering involved with this Phase 6 alert has been intense. An example being spread by interested parties is the story of a girl in England purported by the WHO to have died of swine flu because she was not vaccinated. A more thorough investigation later revealed the girl actually died of septic shock due to tonsillitis. The WHO, CDC and numerous vaccine companies have been extensively advertising dire yet apparently concocted warnings of flu pandemics. Yet only a small number of people worldwide have died from the new flu virus.
When influential TV newscasters questioned the WHO proclaiming a "Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic" without factual evidence to prove it, the WHO responded by simply stopping their tracking of swine flu cases, a bizarre behavior on the part of an organization designated to be the main hub for information gathering on the disease.
Copies of the Vawter's actual files can be viewed at:
http://www.safetylawsuits.com/compl...
http://www.safetylawsuits.com/motio...
http://www.safetylawsuits.com/preli...
This case DOES exist, and I was able to pull up (through PACER) the following docket report. Preliminary Injunction has definitely been filed (see Item #2 on the docket), but not granted, YET. Hearing on the Preliminary Injunction has been scheduled for Sept. 19, 2009.U.S. District CourtDistrict of New Jersey [LIVE] (Trenton)CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:09-cv-03803-JAP-TJBVAWTER v. FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAssigned to: Judge Joel A. PisanoReferred to: Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. BongiovanniCause: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights Date Filed: 07/31/2009Jury Demand: NoneNature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: OtherJurisdiction: U.S. Government DefendantPlaintiff TIM VAWTERpro se, and on behalf of others who may be unaware of the offenses or unable to sue represented by TIM VAWTER30 W. MAIN STREETSUITE 321FREEHOLD, NJ 07728(732) 294-4784PRO SEV.DefendantFEDERAL GOVERNMENTDate Filed # Docket Text 07/31/2009 1 Complaint Received. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Summons, # 3 Application IFP)(eaj) # 4 Text of Proposed Order) (Entered: 07/31/2009) 07/31/2009 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction To Forbid Forced Flu Vaccinations by TIM VAWTER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(eaj) (Entered: 07/31/2009)08/07/2009 3 Letter from Tim Vawter with Exhibit H. (Exhibit H is a DVD and has been forwarded to Chambers) (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Tim Vawter)(gxh) (Entered: 08/07/2009)08/14/2009 4 Letter from Tim Vawter requesting that his IFP application be reviewed with emergency, enclosing $350.00 filing fee if IFP application is not granted today, and requesting Summons to be issued. (Attachments: # 1 Letter from Richard B. Myers to Tim Vawter, # 2 Basic Moral Education Manual)(gxh) (Entered: 08/14/2009)08/14/2009 COMPLAINT against FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, filed by TIM VAWTER. (Filing fee $350 - receipt number 300 375993.) (Refer to docket entry 1 for the Complaint.)(gxh) (Entered: 08/14/2009)08/14/2009 5 SUMMONS ISSUED as to FEDERAL GOVERNMENT with answer to complaint due within 60 days. (gxh) (MAILED TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF) (Entered: 08/14/2009)08/18/2009 Set Deadlines as to 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Motion set for 9/21/2009 before Judge Joel A. Pisano. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (lk) (Entered: 08/18/2009)PACER Service CenterTransaction Receipt 08/26/2009 00:04:08PACER Login: ma3575 Client Code: Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 3:09-cv-03803-JAP-TJB Start date: 1/1/1970 End date: 8/26/2009Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.08
Mary Ann Hartzler 8/26
by Barbara Minton, Natural Health Editor
(NaturalNews) A Preliminary Injunction to stop mandatory vaccinations has been issued in the United States District Court of New Jersey. This comes after a federal lawsuit opposing forced vaccines was filed in that court by Tim Vawter, pro se attorney, on July 31st with the federal government as defendant. When the judge signs the Preliminary Injunction, it will stop the federal government from forcing anyone in any state to take flu vaccine against their will. It will also prevent a state or local government from forcibly vaccinating anyone, and forbid any person who is not vaccinated from being denied any services or constitutional rights. Vawter's filings included a Complaint, and several pages of evidentiary Exhibits.
Vawter's legal papers have been written not only for filing in federal court, but additionally so they can be looked at by activists around the world for ideas on filing lawsuits in their own countries to help stop forced vaccinations. Vawter believes that as the truth of the dangers of flu vaccines continues to become known, banning the forced use of them will eventually succeed on a worldwide basis. He cautions people to avoid fear and keep themselves focused on the task of blocking forced vaccination.
Preliminary Injunction will immediately halt mandatory vaccinations in the U.S.
The Court, having heard the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and read the papers in its support, states in the Preliminary Injunction that it appears the federal government has engaged in some amount of negligence with regards to failure to properly investigate the safety of the flu vaccines scheduled for use in late 2009-2010, and the evidence submitted does warrant a more thorough investigation into the safety of the flu vaccines.
The Court ordered that the government shall be forbidden from forcing any person to be required to take any influenza vaccination against that person's free will and free choice. The government will not allow any state or local government, or any party, to force any person to be required to take any influenza vaccination against that person's free will and free choice.
It is further ordered that the government shall not deny any constitutional rights to any person who has not received a flu vaccine, nor allow any doctor, company, or other party to deny any of these people services such as medical care, attending school, or similar services or freedoms, nor can the government allow any doctors, companies, or other parties, to deny any of these people their constitutional rights. The only exception to this, where a person who does not get a flu vaccination might be denied certain services, shall be after it is shown in a court of law, with clear and convincing evidence, on an individual case-by-case basis, where due process and a right to a defense is allowed. Only then can a person be denied a particular service because the person did not receive a flu vaccine.
U.S. government sued for gross negligence and violation of the Constitution
In his Cause of Action, Vawter charged that the federal government has engaged in gross negligence by funding and promoting flu vaccines that are proven to be dangerous and manufactured with little oversight. The vaccines scheduled for use in late 2009 and 2010 contain heavy metals including thimerosal mercury, which have been proven to cause autism in children with lowered immune systems, and other dangerous and toxic ingredients. The federal government has stated it will force these flu vaccines onto the American public against their will, under a document signed by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
He further charged that the vaccine makers stand to earn billions of dollars selling vaccines, and are already spending tens of millions advertising a "Phase 6 Pandemic" that the evidence shows does not really exist. The federal government has not required the World Health Organization (WHO) to show evidence of such a pandemic. There has been no collection of facts, sworn testimony, witnesses being questioned, hearings being held, or lie detector tests being given when preposterous statements have been made. The WHO declared a massive "Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic", even though only a few hundred people worldwide had so far died of this swine flu virus, and when far more people die each year of regular flu.
Vawter noted there is a preponderance of evidence to show that the federal government so poorly trained its employees that they eagerly agreed with the unsubstantiated claims of the WHO in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Forced vaccination would violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the government to enter homes and force people to be vaccinated, or to forcibly remove people to another location for vaccination. It would also violate Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights by depriving people of liberty without due process of law.
Vawter charged that the federal government has engaged in gross negligence by failing to properly investigate factual evidence submitted by esteemed medical professions over many years which proves flu vaccines have caused serious damage to people. The CDC has stated that thimerosal mercury is being used in the new flu vaccines being prepared.
The government has failed to investigate profiteering. Billions of dollars in vaccine sales can cause organizations to falsify threats so as to cause unwarranted public hysteria leading to forced vaccinations.
The government is guilty of gross negligence because its employees failed to properly investigate the release of a case of live swine flu virus. One of the main companies the government deals with, Baxter Vaccines, was apparently involved in the transporting of live bird flu virus that was released on a public train earlier this year. A lab technician with the Swiss National Center for Influenza in Geneva had traveled to Zurich to collect eight ampoules, five of which were filled with the H1N1 swine flu virus. However, failure of the dry ice in their container allowed pressure to build up, and the ampoules exploded as the train was pulling into a station.
The highly reputable UK newspaper "the Telegraph" reported on July 2nd that flu vaccines tested on homeless people caused twenty-one of them to die.
Vawter charged there is a preponderance of evidence to show that government will not provide people being vaccinated with a list of the vaccine ingredients and possible negative side effects before they are vaccinated. Most of the public will not know this flu vaccine contains thimerosal mercury.
Vawter submitted an Order to force the government to publish vaccine ingredients and side effects, and to give this information to everyone who takes a flu vaccine, and do so at least 3 days prior to their vaccination. A denial of this order would violate Plaintiff's rights to demand the government obey the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by requiring it to engage in freedom of speech. The First Amendment not only allows a citizen to have freedom of speech himself, but it allows a citizen to demand his government engage in freedom of speech when it is promoting the use of such as these vaccinations to the public.
The government proclamation stating a person cannot sue for any damages he receives from the flu vaccine, completely bypasses the congress and the court system in violation of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution which grants the right to sue to recover for damages. Vawter submitted an Order to deem unconstitutional any proclamation, rule or similar law that forbids people from suing for damages resulting from the vaccines of 2009 and 2010.
Vawter is seeking damages of $100,000.00 as the result of suffering depression, extreme anxiety and emotional duress when his nephew began life as a healthy, happy baby boy, only to come down with autism after being given baby vaccines that contained thimerosal mercury. For years his nephew has struggled with this incredibly debilitating, preventable condition. According to Vawter, a claim may be submitted not only by his nephew, but by others who have suffered damages from vaccinations.
Vawter claimed that several rules and proclamations detailed in the lawsuit are unconstitutional and claimed that if they are not stricken and amended, he and other people who may not be aware of the offenses or who may be unable to sue, will suffer pending "injury-in-fact" damages. As attorneys and law firms join this lawsuit, recovery requests will reveal the names of additional people who have suffered injuries so they can be contacted about recovering damages, as the law allows.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction claims some vaccines may contain live virus
Although much of the Preliminary Injunction is a reiteration of information contained in his lawsuit, there are a few additions of note. Vawter includes in his grounds the fact that since the manufacturing of flu vaccines involves first destroying a live flu virus, there is a possibility that live flu virus will be in some of the vaccines, causing even more damages to people who receive it, and spreading the virus.
He asked the Court to use federal law enforcement to initiate its own civil and criminal investigation into flu vaccine safety issue, as federal law allows for this.
He noted the days when Hitler's Nazi doctors forcibly gave shots containing adjuvants to innocent people, and reminded that Nazi ideology was stamped out precisely because of those atrocities. He claims it is unwise for the U.S. government to follow in the same path as the Nazis. America is a nation of civil laws, not a dictatorship that gives proclamations bypassing the courts and congress to demand forced vaccinations containing hazardous ingredients known to cause damages.
The forced vaccination debacle of 1976 that the government had to halt because it was injuring more people than it was protecting shows vaccine makers should not be allowed to force their vaccines on people who have no recourse. The prohibition against lawsuits by the injured gives the green light to vaccine makers to include thimerosal mercury in their new flu vaccines. When the Order deeming the forbidding of lawsuits as unconstitutional is given, any defendant will have to present factual proof in federal court, not just hearsay or advertising slogans, as so why the Constitution says it is okay to forbid people from suing to recover damages resulting from flu vaccine.
Medical professionals argue flu vaccines harm not just certain people but almost everyone who receives them. Yet the government has ignored factual evidence proving this, and instead listens to a profit run group of vaccine manufacturers who stand to earn billions of dollars as the government orders forced vaccinations on the public for the coming flu season.
The government has published a chart listing the WHO's "Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic" as being equal to an earthquake measuring 8.0 on the Richter Scale. This chart is preposterous because there are no factual criteria required for an "Influenza Pandemic" to be declared by the United Nations' WHO. The United Nations is a collective of numerous nations, most of whom have very different laws than the U.S. has, and where their leaders can simply declare or proclaim things to be so without judicial review, and their population must obey.
Glaxo Smith Kline stands to make $4 billion from its two flu vaccine drugs. CEO Andrew Witty has said his company has been preparing for a flu pandemic for thee years and has spent over $1 billion to expand its factories. Executives from Glaxo, Baxter, Novartis, and Sanofi Pasteur had seats at the advisory group that on July 13th recommended mandatory H1N1 vaccination for everyone in all 194 countries belonging to the WHO.
The fear mongering involved with this Phase 6 alert has been intense. An example being spread by interested parties is the story of a girl in England purported by the WHO to have died of swine flu because she was not vaccinated. A more thorough investigation later revealed the girl actually died of septic shock due to tonsillitis. The WHO, CDC and numerous vaccine companies have been extensively advertising dire yet apparently concocted warnings of flu pandemics. Yet only a small number of people worldwide have died from the new flu virus.
When influential TV newscasters questioned the WHO proclaiming a "Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic" without factual evidence to prove it, the WHO responded by simply stopping their tracking of swine flu cases, a bizarre behavior on the part of an organization designated to be the main hub for information gathering on the disease.
Copies of the Vawter's actual files can be viewed at:
http://www.safetylawsuits.com/compl...
http://www.safetylawsuits.com/motio...
http://www.safetylawsuits.com/preli...
This case DOES exist, and I was able to pull up (through PACER) the following docket report. Preliminary Injunction has definitely been filed (see Item #2 on the docket), but not granted, YET. Hearing on the Preliminary Injunction has been scheduled for Sept. 19, 2009.U.S. District CourtDistrict of New Jersey [LIVE] (Trenton)CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:09-cv-03803-JAP-TJBVAWTER v. FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAssigned to: Judge Joel A. PisanoReferred to: Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. BongiovanniCause: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights Date Filed: 07/31/2009Jury Demand: NoneNature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: OtherJurisdiction: U.S. Government DefendantPlaintiff TIM VAWTERpro se, and on behalf of others who may be unaware of the offenses or unable to sue represented by TIM VAWTER30 W. MAIN STREETSUITE 321FREEHOLD, NJ 07728(732) 294-4784PRO SEV.DefendantFEDERAL GOVERNMENTDate Filed # Docket Text 07/31/2009 1 Complaint Received. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Summons, # 3 Application IFP)(eaj) # 4 Text of Proposed Order) (Entered: 07/31/2009) 07/31/2009 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction To Forbid Forced Flu Vaccinations by TIM VAWTER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(eaj) (Entered: 07/31/2009)08/07/2009 3 Letter from Tim Vawter with Exhibit H. (Exhibit H is a DVD and has been forwarded to Chambers) (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Tim Vawter)(gxh) (Entered: 08/07/2009)08/14/2009 4 Letter from Tim Vawter requesting that his IFP application be reviewed with emergency, enclosing $350.00 filing fee if IFP application is not granted today, and requesting Summons to be issued. (Attachments: # 1 Letter from Richard B. Myers to Tim Vawter, # 2 Basic Moral Education Manual)(gxh) (Entered: 08/14/2009)08/14/2009 COMPLAINT against FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, filed by TIM VAWTER. (Filing fee $350 - receipt number 300 375993.) (Refer to docket entry 1 for the Complaint.)(gxh) (Entered: 08/14/2009)08/14/2009 5 SUMMONS ISSUED as to FEDERAL GOVERNMENT with answer to complaint due within 60 days. (gxh) (MAILED TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF) (Entered: 08/14/2009)08/18/2009 Set Deadlines as to 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Motion set for 9/21/2009 before Judge Joel A. Pisano. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (lk) (Entered: 08/18/2009)PACER Service CenterTransaction Receipt 08/26/2009 00:04:08PACER Login: ma3575 Client Code: Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 3:09-cv-03803-JAP-TJB Start date: 1/1/1970 End date: 8/26/2009Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.08
Mary Ann Hartzler 8/26
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
