Liberal Double Standard Raises Its Head Again With Trump Campaign

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel

As one more example of how language is distorted by politicians and journalists, this issue indicates that it is acceptable for some politicians to use ethnicity and race for their advantage. But victims of special privileges for some cannot point out the abuses. Once again, perceived hate speech and bias are more important than violations of law. The misguided statement of Paul Ryan shows how nonsensical the ideas of special privileges have become. Complaints about perceived bias of a judge is attacked as racist. Since when is hispanic a race? One more reason why Ryan is not fit to be House Speaker. The White House shows it is acting presidential (Ahem!)  by using his office to attack a candidate for president. More evidence of the deception of this White House exhibiting bias in everything it does. In one case a judge's ability to be impartial was questioned because he was a member of a golf club that did not admit women. U.S. Senator Chuck "You" Schumer  (D-NY) established a criteria for judges who must support the Roe vs. Wade decision.



[From article]
Trump has a perfect right to be angry about the judge’s rulings and to question his motives. Second, there are grounds for believing Trump is right.
On May 27, Curiel, at the request of The Washington Post, made public plaintiff accusations against Trump University — that the whole thing was a scam. The Post, which Bob Woodward tells us has 20 reporters digging for dirt in Trump’s past, had a field day.
[. . .]
what did Trump do to be smeared by a bipartisan media mob as a “racist”?
He attacked the independence of the judiciary, we are told.
But Presidents Jefferson and Jackson attacked the Supreme Court, and FDR, fed up with New Deal programs being struck down, tried to “pack the court” by raising the number of justices to 15 if necessary.
Abraham Lincoln leveled “that eminent tribunal” in his first inaugural, and once considered arresting Chief Justice Roger Taney.
[. . .]
The judiciary is independent, but that does not mean that federal judges are exempt from the same robust criticism as presidents or members of Congress.
Obama himself attacked the Citizens United decision in a State of the Union address, with the justices sitting right in front of him.
[. . .]
Apparently, it is now not only politically incorrect, but, in Newt Gingrich’s term, “inexcusable,” to bring up the religious, racial or ethnic background of a judge, or suggest this might influence his actions on the bench.
[. . .]
Does Newt think that when LBJ appointed Thurgood Marshall, ex-head of the NAACP, to the Supreme Court, he did not think Marshall would bring his unique experience as a black man and civil rights leader to the bench?
[. . .]
When Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, a woman of Puerto Rican descent who went through college on affirmative action scholarships, did Obama think this would not influence her decision when it came to whether or not to abolish affirmative action?
[. . .]
There are reasons why defense lawyers seek “changes of venue” and avoid the courtrooms of “hanging judges.”
When Obama reflexively called Sgt. Crowley “stupid” after Crowley’s 2009 encounter with that black professor at Harvard, and said of Trayvon Martin, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” was he not speaking as an African-American, as well as a president?
[. . .]
But does anyone think that if Obama appointed a Muslim to the Supreme Court, the LGBT community would not be demanding of all Democratic Senators that they receive assurances that the Muslim judge’s religious views on homosexuality would never affect his court decisions, before they voted to put him on the bench?
[. . .]
And the Democrats who tore [Clement] Haynsworth (Nixon's Supreme Court appointee) to pieces did so because they feared he would not repudiate his Southern heritage and any and all ideas and beliefs associated with it.
[. . .]
The most depressing thing about this episode is to see Republicans rushing to stomp on Trump, to show the left how well they have mastered their liberal catechism.

http://buchanan.org/blog/donald-la-raza-judge-125323

The Donald & The La Raza Judge
Tuesday - June 7, 2016 at 1:01 am
Patrick J, Buchanan

* * *

[From article]
The federal judge presiding over the Trump University class action lawsuit is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a group that while not a branch of the National Council of La Raza, has ties to the controversial organization, which translates literally “The Race.”
U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who has been criticized by Donald Trump as a “hater” appointed by President Obama who should be recused from the case, listed his membership in the “La Raza Lawyers of San Diego” on a judicial questionnaire he filled out when he was selected to be a federal judge. He was named in a brochure as a member of the selection committee for the organization’s 2014 Annual Scholarship Fund Dinner & Gala. Meanwhile, the San-Diego based law firm representing the plaintiffs in the Trump University case, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, was listed as a sponsor of the event.



WND reported the San Diego firm paid $675,000 to the Clintons for speeches, and the firm’s founder is a wealthy San Diego lawyer who served a two-year sentence in federal prison for his role in a kickback scheme to mobilize plaintiffs for class-action lawsuits.
While critics of Trump have argued that the San Diego La Raza Lawyers’ association is not affiliated with the National Council of La Raza, consider the following:
The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of California, affiliated with the Chicano/Latino Bar Association of California.
On the website of the La Raza Lawyers Association of California, at the bottom of the “Links & Affiliates Page,” the National Council of La Raza is listed.
The website of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is joint-listed as San Diego’s Latino/Latina Bar Association.



On the “endorsements” page, the combined website lists the National Council of La Raza as part of the “community,” along with the Hispanic National Bar Association,, a group that emerged with a changed name from the originally formed La Raza National Lawyers Association and the La Raza National Bar Association tracing its origin back to 1971.
Further, while the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and the National Council of La Raza are legally separate incorporated entities, the two groups appear to have an affiliation that traces back to the emergence of MEChA, the Moviemento Estudiantil Chicanos de Atzlán.
MEChA is a 1960s radical separatist student movement in California that espoused the mythical Aztec idea of a “nation of Aztlán,” comprising much of the southwestern United States, including California.
As David Horowitz points out on his website Discover the Networks that La Raza, Spanish for “the race,” also has roots in the early 1960s with a “united front” organization, the National Organization for Mexican American Services, NOMAS. The group initially was funded by the Ford Foundation, and subsequently by George Soros’ Open Society Institute and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
In 1968, the Southwest Council of La Raza was organized with Ford Foundation funding. In 1972, the group changed its name to the National Council of La Raza and opened an office in Washington, D.C.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/trump-u-judges-group-tied-to-national-council-of-laraza/ JUDGE,

LAW FIRM BRINGING TRUMP U CASE BOTH TIED TO LA RAZA Curiel awarded scholarship to illegal immigrant
Jerome R. Corsi
June 6, 2016

 * * *



[From 2009 article]

In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”
In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
[. . .]
a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”
[. . .]
Judge Sotomayor has given several speeches about the importance of diversity. But her 2001 remarks at Berkeley, which were published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, went further, asserting that judges’ identities will affect legal outcomes.
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
[. . .]
“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” she said.
Charles J. Ogletree Jr., a Harvard law professor and an adviser to Mr. Obama, said Judge Sotomayor’s remarks were appropriate. Professor Ogletree said it was “obvious that people’s life experiences will inform their judgments in life as lawyers and judges” because law is more than “a technical exercise,” citing Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s famous aphorism: “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html?_r=0

A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record
By CHARLIE SAVAGE

MAY 14, 2009
The New York Times

US Judge Retires After Utah Woman Files Sex Abuse Lawsuit. She Was 16 at Time of Incident

This undated photo shows Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the Federal District of Washington. 

(U.S. District Court)
[From article]
A Utah woman alleges in a lawsuit filed Wednesday that a longtime federal judge sexually assaulted her when he was a prosecutor and she was a teenage witness in a high-profile case 35 years ago.
Lawyers for Richard W. Roberts acknowledged an intimate relationship, but they called the accusations "categorically false" and said Roberts will challenge them in court.
The lawsuit was filed the same day Roberts announced his retirement as chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, according to documents obtained by The National Law Journal. In a letter to the White House, Roberts said his retirement was effective Wednesday, based on medical advice for an unspecified disability.
The Utah Attorney General's Office announced after the lawsuit was filed that they have investigated the woman's allegations, but opted not to prosecute Roberts. Investigators found evidence of a sexual relationship, but they determined Roberts didn't break any laws, in part because the woman was old enough to consent to sexual relations under Utah laws in 1981.
Investigators did not interview Roberts about the allegations.
A lawyer for Terry Mitchell, now 51, says in the court filing that Roberts sexually abused her multiple times throughout the trial of white supremacist Joseph Paul Franklin, who killed two black joggers in Salt Lake City in 1980. Mitchell was with them and was wounded by shrapnel in the attack.
The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they were sexually assaulted, but Mitchell said she wants to make the allegations public. She told The Associated Press that she's coming forward because the allegations have been kept secret for too long.
[. . .]
Findings from the Utah attorney general's investigation were sent to several congressional committees. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that he chairs has looked at the documentation. "Our initial review of the allegations has caused alarm and distress over their serious nature," Chaffetz said.
The abuse began after Roberts arranged for Mitchell to meet with him about the case in person, then took her to dinner and lured her into his hotel room, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit says he had sex with her that night, even though she said she was not ready for it, and that he continued to abuse her over the next several weeks before and during the trial.
[. . .]
She was vulnerable from the shooting and other sexual assaults in her past when she met Roberts, and he exploited and coerced her, her attorney said.
The lawsuit says Roberts kept her quiet about the abuse by telling her multiple times before and after the trial that if anyone found out they had sex Franklin might not be convicted.
Utah prosecutors chose not to bring criminal charges based on the recommendation of Paul Cassell, a law professor and former federal judge who reviewed the findings.
The attorney general's office released a copy of Cassell's report on Wednesday. He wrote that then 16-year-old Mitchell was considered old enough under state laws at the time to consent to sex and the allegations she was coerced weren't strong enough to file charges.
Cassell concluded that Roberts may not have committed a crime but that he appears to have acted unethically and likely violated U.S. Department of Justice rules for attorney conduct, among other rule violations.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/17/federal-judge-retires-after-being-sued-by-utah-woman-over-alleged-sex-assault.html?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obinsite

Federal judge retires after being sued by Utah woman over alleged sex assault
Published March 17, 2016

Associated Press

Scalia Led Fight Against Rule By Courts

[From article]
this outpouring of feeling and machinations regarding his replacement exposes a second tragedy – that the United States now edges on becoming a kritarchy, a government of judges. How else can one possibly explain the wall-to-wall media coverage on how his death might transform 5-4 victories into 4-4 stalemates or, worse, 5-4 defeats if Obama picks the next associate justice?
[. . .]
The political influence of judge-made law is clearly visible in everything from Obamacare to gun control, same-sex marriages, abortion, redistricting, the death penalty, immigration, campaign finance, and racial preferences in higher education. It is no exaggeration to say that the highest laws of the land now reflect the views of at least five unelected officials who are 99.9% immune to public pressure. And this power seems to be growing. Hard to believe that Scalia's nomination to the Court was so uncontroversial that it passed the Senate by a 98-0 margin.
If one's side has sympathetic judges, the kritarchy temptation can be irresistible, but evaluated against democratic criteria, the liabilities far outweigh the benefits. Let me offer some of the key anti-kritarchy arguments prior to discussing reversing this dangerous drift.



First, courts, regardless of whose ideology dominates, have scant control over their agenda, so those dependent on judge-made law may never have the chance to be victorious, even if one's side enjoys a 9-0 majority. A virtual perfect storm is necessary to put an issue before a court, and even then, not necessarily in a way that permits a decisive outcome. Opponents of Roe v. Wade (1973) may never live to see it totally overturned, since abortion cases inevitably concern a variety of administrative details, not the core up-or-down issue. By contrast, fighting the battle legislatively permits an unambiguous victory (or defeat). Kritarchy is wonderful only for those possessing the resources to find a good case and then shepherd it through costly legal multi-year battles with the hope that the version that ultimately comes before one's judicial allies can bring the desired success (think same-sex marriage). Not exactly the most practical solution to satisfying a political aim.
Second, since nearly all federal judges serve for life, they are unaccountable save for being impeached, and even removing them (an exceptionally arduous task) does not undo their unpopular behavior. To be sure, a hated decision may be reversed by a legislature, but this solution is far more cumbersome than simply throwing out incumbent legislators (and legislators know that legislatively reversing a judicial decision can, in turn, be reversed by judges). In effect, the Supreme Court's 7-2 majority that existed in 1973 on Roe v. Wade is nearly impervious to reversal, no matter how strong the public's shift on abortion. Of course, this is great news for those who achieved this 1973 victory, but it is clearly a risky strategy – if you lose, it may be forever.
Third, say what you want about disorderly, often theatrical legislative debates, but they can raise almost any issue imaginable and these debates are generally open to public scrutiny and thus serve a didactic purpose. The current brouhaha over immigration among GOP hopefuls perfectly illustrates this point – both Cruz and Rubio relish pointing to each other's legislative record on amnesty. Matters are entirely different with far more secretive judicial deliberations. Few ordinary citizens and non-experts can follow judicial debates, let alone grasp terminology like "strict scrutiny." Moreover, not only are cameras banned in the Supreme Court, but the whole deliberative process is more obscure than the sausage-making of the local butcher shop.


Antonin Scalia, Justice, Supreme Court Of the United States

Lastly, kritarchy is a risky political strategy: winning coalitions can easily be undone by the uncontrollable vagaries of life. Yes, you may appoint a strict law-and-order justice, but who would have predicted the path taken by Earl Warren, a one-time tough prosecutor who became famous as the chief justice adamantly soft on crime? Then there's the uncertainties of the specific lower courts that decide a case – identical cases are often decided differently by different courts, a situation promoting "judge shopping." Indeed, kritarchy – rule by judges – can merge into gerontocracy – rule by elderly, perhaps demented judges. This is hardly an appetizing outcome.
How can kritarchy be avoided? The easy answer is to insist that all judicial appointees swear an oath that they will not invent laws of out of thin air or rely on crackpot social science theories, a judicial philosophy called strict constructivism. It is an admirable approach in the abstract, but problems often emerge when scrutinizing century-old laws. More importantly, how can sitting judges be held accountable if they reject this philosophy once appointed?
Fortunately, a realistic solution exists that begins by acknowledging that the kritarchy can flourish only where the elected branches of government abdicate their governance responsibilities. Kritarchy exists in a power void. Consider the troubled, often confused history of racial preferences in higher education.
Title VI, section 601 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is crystal-clear: "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Nevertheless, within a decade, the Supreme Court began issuing decisions that clearly violated Title VI, section 601 (see here). In multiple instances, the judges, often with the slimiest majorities, creatively overruled "no racial discrimination" by concocting principles – for example, American society's "compelling" need for racial diversity. In fact, even a half-century beyond the 1964 law, the Supreme Court is still trying to navigate all the exceptions and the legal underbrush.



What if the U.S. Department of Justice had from the get-go instead issued arrest warrants for university administrators who violated Title VI, section 601? That is, arrest them, put them in orange jumpsuits, and haul them into court, and let a jury decide that the 1964 law really said "no racial discrimination except where such discrimination promotes diversity." And if a jury was stymied, Congress could amend the 1964 law to prohibit the "diversity defense" (or any other exception), so the landmark Civil Rights law could remain true to its original aim.
Racial preferences is only one of many examples of today's kritarchy. The larger point is how judges regularly fill a power vacuum when Congress and the president fail to exercise their responsibilities. If Congress wanted to amend the 1964 law by authorizing multiple exceptions, that should have been openly debated and not decided by a tiny handful of ingenious judges.
Hopefully future courts will not need another Antonin Scalia, a jurist whose singular accomplishment was battling kritarchy. We should live under democratically enacted laws, not make-it-up-as-you-go-along jurisprudence.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/antonin_scalia_and_the_battle_against_kritarchy.html

February 22, 2016
Antonin Scalia and the Battle against Kritarchy
By Robert Weissberg

Curbing Court Abuses, Restoring Freedoms Of Constitution

[From article]
When one man, Justice Anthony Kennedy, acting as the deciding swing vote on the Supreme Court, declared that “gay marriage” was now the law of land for a country of some 320 million persons, he may as well have been seated on a planet other than the one originally occupied by the men who wrote the Constitution. Note that the new nation was titled “United” and not “Uniform” States of America. That wasn’t a slip of the pen. America was never intended to be culturally and politically homogenous from sea to shining sea, though we hadn’t quite gotten there as yet. But here we are today, rolled flat by the wheels of the federal Juggernaut with nary a peep of protest by our local, state and federal representatives or executives.
[. . .]
Employing the courts to make and enforce cultural or moral decisions is one way of ensuring societal discord. It didn’t work with court-ordered busing that was intended to achieve racial integration of public schools. It still hasn’t settled the abortion-on-demand issue. And it certainly won’t peacefully and permanently institutionalize gay marriage no matter what Justice Kennedy or anyone else thinks.
[. . .]
One common law principle that has essentially disappeared from use is that of jury nullification. This principle was well-established English common law by the time the right to trial by jury was written into the Constitution. As described by Madison, jury nullification would provide the final defense against a tyrannical government. It was one means of preserving a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.” It was intended as a direct veto over government power by ordinary citizens. Contrary to common opinion, jury nullification does not mean that a jury may decide what the law is. That’s not the case. What it does mean is that a jury has a right to decide what is just even if its decision may be contrary to prior interpretation of a particular law. The jury may, regarding the specific case before it, judge the law to be unjust or unjustly applied. As a consequence, directed verdicts are prohibited. However, in 1895 the Supreme Court in Sparf v. U.S. ruled that jury nullification did not apply to the federal court system or cases. There went Madison’s shield against tyranny right out the window. Use of this common law principle in state courts has also been rather effectively suppressed even where not formally prohibited.
[. . .]
McNabb v. United States
[. . .]
Of course, ignoring, distorting or misinterpreting common law principle is only a piece of the very large puzzle of how our federal government -- through the unchecked acts of the men and women who peopled it -- stealthily, though boldly, evolved into the overbearing behemoth that it is today
[. . .]
The federal government is a massive bureaucracy quite determined to retain its pay and privileges. It has purchased the vote of a goodly portion of the electorate through programs of questionable benefit to the country as whole. Its future is to be assured through the progressive indoctrination of children in the public K-12 school system. Political correctness and disdain for free speech have become standard operating procedure at many universities. America’s military is underfunded and its traditions have been scuttled. The armed forces are now a laboratory for social experimentation rather than combat. All the major news sources, including to a fair extent FOX News, offer a one-sided, progressive slant on politics and current events. And perhaps most important of all, a large segment of the American people are more interested in and distracted by celebrity, sport, video games, internet porn and fantasy entertainment.
[. . .]
But I haven’t heard any of the candidates offer realistic proposals on how we’re even going to begin dealing with all, most or any of the above. Immigration, anyone? And I don’t see any presidential Alexander on the horizon who can cut through the Gordian Knot of our political bewilderment and frustration.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/is_it_possible_to_restrain_the_federal_judiciary_or_downsize_the_federal_government.html

February 13, 2016
Is It Possible to Restrain the Federal Judiciary or Downsize the Federal Government?
By Dennis Sevakis

US Courts Work During Presidential Primary Campaigns

[From article]
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a major blow to President Barack Obama by blocking federal regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, the centerpiece of his administration's strategy to combat climate change.
On a 5-4 vote, the court granted a request made by 27 states and various companies and business groups to block the administration's Clean Power Plan. The move means the regulations will not be in effect while litigation continues over whether their legality.
[. . .]



The 27 states opposing President Obama's regulations are acting in self defense. In other words, these states, including West Virginia, need these plants to create jobs.
The Obama administration did not consult these states and try to find some common ground, a reasonable point between concern for the environment and paychecks.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/the_other_big_story_of_the_day.html

February 11, 2016
The other big story of the day
By Silvio Canto, Jr.

History of Union Dues, and The Supreme Court of The United States

[From article]
The U.S. Supreme Court is now considering a case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, brought by ten teachers in California, concerning the First Amendment to the Constitution. The teachers oppose the requirement forcing public sector workers to support unions. They want the Court to overrule the 1977 case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that allows unions to levy charges on non-members of unions. Some 23 states, mostly Democratic, and the District of Columbia allow such charges to occur.
The objection of the California teachers, is based on two factors: opposition to the political position that unions take; and simple refusal to join a union if inclined to see unions as unnecessary or irrelevant.
[. . .]



The crux of the issue is whether it is unconstitutional for a non-member of the unions to be made to pay for union activities that, among other things, involve not only activities that benefit the non-member, such as negotiating for higher wages and benefits, but in addition involve activities that may be abhorrent to the non-member. The latter involves the First Amendment: should individuals be forced to contribute to avocation of positions with which they disagree?
In the Abood case, the Supreme Court made a fine line distinction. On one hand, it held that it was a violation of the First Amendment for unions to make non-members pay for political activities. On the other hand, it was constitutional for union to obtain a fee from non-members to help pay for collective bargaining activities.
Abood has since been qualified in a number of cases. In a limited ruling on June 30, 2014, in Harris v. Quinn, Governor of Illinois, the Court narrowly held, 5-4, that partial public employees, such as homecare aides who are paid by Medicaid, cannot be required to contribute to union fees.
Similarly, political actions have limited union powers and funds. The Michigan right to work law of March 2013 prohibited new contracts from requiring union dues as a condition of employment, and another Michigan law prohibits school districts from deducting union dues for salaries of teachers. The impact was immediate. Union membership fell by 50,000 in one year.
[. . .]
About one-third of public sectors employees belong to unions compared to six per cent of private sector employees.
[. . .]



Since 1913, trade unions in Britain can maintain political funds. [. . .] there has been a historic connection for over a century between the two. Trade unions provide about 20 per cent of the funding of the party. [. . .] However, union members could “contract out” of the affiliation and therefore not pay the fee. Those who do not “contract out,” cannot decide on the use of their individual contribution. The use of political funds is a matter of union policy.
The system was changed as result of the General Strike in 1927. Parliament passed the Trade Disputes and Trade Union Act that replaced opting or contracting out with “contracting in,” meaning that those who wanted to contribute to affiliation had to make a positive decision in favor of it.
The result was a catastrophic drop in union membership. In 1947, the Labour government reintroduced the “contracting out” requirement, with the predictable result that affiliation of union membership increased from 39 per cent to 60 per cent within two years.
[. . .]
The British Parliament today is currently debating the issue of requiring “contracting in” or “opting in” to pay the levy to the Labour Party. The decision is important because of the sustained decline in union membership from 13.2 million in 1979 to 7.5 million today.
[. . .]
There is of course a difference between rights and obligations, and the issue of free speech, in Britain and in the U.S. [. . .] In the U.S. the issues are more problematic due to the rights granted by the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment. From early hearings it is likely that the Supreme Court in Friedrichs will again narrowly decide this major issue. But one may predict that, whatever the decision, union membership in the U.S. will decline as it has done in Britain.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/the_state_of_the_unions.html

January 17, 2016
The State of the Unions
By Michael Curtis

Home of Chief Judge of Ohio U.S. Courts Invaded, Husband Beaten

Susan Dlott graduated from Boston University School of Law in 1973. She was in my class.

[From article]
Federal Judge Susan Dlott wrote the book on racial profiling in 2002.
Last week, she ripped it into one million tiny pieces when three black people broke into her $8 million Cincinnati home and started beating her and her 79-year old husband.
“There’s three black men with guns at our house,” Dlott told a 911 operator after she escaped the home invasion and ran to her neighbor’s house one mile away.
And just in case the operator did not hear her the first time, Dlott said it again: “My husband and the dogs are still there. There are three black men with guns and masks at the house.”
[. . .]

Darrell Kinney, Terry Jackson and Demetrius Williams

For all the talk of how black criminals were being treated unfairly, there was little or no testimony about black on white crime and black mob violence in Cincinnati. And how it was wildly out of proportion. And little from white and Asian victims of that crime and violence
[. . .]
Just a few months ago, Attorney General Lynch was the featured speaker at a Black Caucus seminar on this topic, where several black police chiefs and lawyers and government officials agreed that if the same amount of police resources were moved to white neighborhoods, police would make the same kind of arrests in the same amount.
So there really is no difference between black and white crime.
That is the essence of racial profiling.
That is how so many people in Cincinnati and in law journals around the country know Susan Dlott.
[. . .]
The three home invaders who just happened to be black were soon caught. And remain in jail awaiting trial with bail of at least $2.5 million.
That did not sit well with the mother of one of the alleged invaders, who told reporters her son was a good boy who did not normally do stuff like that.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/federal_judge_who_outlawed_racial_profiling_is_victim_of_black_mob_violence.html

December 11, 2015
Federal Judge Who Outlawed Racial Profiling is Victim of Black Mob Violence
By Colin Flaherty

* * *

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/indian-hill/federal-judge-susan-dlott-made-chilling-911-call-after-3-gunmen-robbed-her-husband-stan-chesley-

Federal Judge Susan Dlott made chilling 911 call after 3 gunmen attacked her, husband Stan Chesley
Couple robbed at gunpoint in Indian Hill home
Julie O'Neill
6:10 PM, Dec 7, 2015
5:18 PM, Dec 9, 2015

Federal Jury Declares Washington DC Man Was Framed By Police Who Are Liable For Substantial Damages

Donald Gates arrives at the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 5. 
(Astrid Riecken for The Washington Post)

[From article]
A federal jury on Wednesday found that D.C. police framed an innocent man for a 1981 rape and murder, making the District liable for damages after he was imprisoned for 27 years.
Jurors found that two D.C. homicide detectives fabricated all or part of a confession purportedly made by the wrongly accused Donald E. Gates to a police informant. The detectives also withheld other evidence from Gates before he was convicted in the fatal attack on a 21-year-old Georgetown University student in Rock Creek Park, jurors found.
Gates, now 64, was exonerated in the June 1981 killing and released from prison in 2009 after DNA testing.
Following Wednesday’s verdict, Gates’s attorneys said the detectives’ conduct warranted investigation into their handling of other cases.
[. . .]
“It feels like the God of the King James Bible is real, and he answered my prayers,” Gates, who lives in Knoxville, Tenn., said as he left the courtroom. “Justice is on the way to being fulfilled. . . . It’s one of the happiest days of my life.”
[. . .]
Gates’s case was the first federal civil rights claim for damages involving a wrongful conviction in the District.
By law, jurors face no limit on how much money they can award Gates in compensatory damages.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-police-framed-man-imprisoned-27-years-for-1981-murder-us-jury-finds/2015/11/18/7a454054-8e04-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html

D.C. police framed man imprisoned 27 years for 1981 murder, U.S. jury finds
By Spencer S. Hsu

November 18, 2015 at 10:19 PM

Riverside CA High Wiretapping Statistics

Riverside County Superior Court Judge Helios Hernandez approved nearly five times as many wiretaps last year as any other judge in the United States. 
(Photo: Brett Kelman, The Desert Sun)

[From article]
Federal drug agents have built a massive wiretapping operation in the Los Angeles suburbs, secretly intercepting tens of thousands of Americans' phone calls and text messages to monitor drug traffickers across the United States despite objections from Justice Department lawyers who fear the practice may not be legal.
Nearly all of that surveillance was authorized by a single state court judge in Riverside County, who last year signed off on almost five times as many wiretaps as any other judge in the United States. The judge's orders allowed investigators — usually from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration — to intercept more than 2 million conversations involving 44,000 people, federal court records show.


The eavesdropping is aimed at dismantling the drug rings that have turned Los Angeles' eastern suburbs into what the DEA says is the nation's busiest shipping corridor for heroin and methamphetamine. Riverside wiretaps are supposed to be tied to crime within the county, but investigators have relied on them to make arrests and seize shipments of cash and drugs as far away as New York and Virginia, sometimes concealing the surveillance in the process.
The surveillance has raised concerns among Justice Department lawyers in Los Angeles, who have mostly refused to use the results in federal court because they have concluded the state court's eavesdropping orders are unlikely to withstand a legal challenge, current and former Justice officials said.
[. . .]


Federal agents often prefer to seek permission to tap phones from state courts, instead of federal courts, because the process is generally faster and less demanding than seeking approval through the Justice Department. In addition, California law allows them to better conceal the identities of confidential informants they rely on to help investigate drug rings. Over the past decade, drug agents have more than tripled their use of wiretaps, mostly by using state court orders.
[. . .]
DEA officials said it should not come as a surprise that so much of their surveillance work happens in the area around Riverside — a vast expanse of suburbs and desert east of Los Angeles, crisscrossed by freeways that have become key shipping routes for drugs moving from Mexico to the United States and for cash making the return journey.
[. . .]


But current and former Justice Department officials said prosecutors in Los Angeles repeatedly told the drug agency that they would not accept cases based on state-court wiretaps – and those from Riverside County in particular – because they believed the applications being approved by state judges fell short of what the federal law requires. Prosecutors were particularly concerned that the DEA was seeking state-court wiretap orders without adequately showing that it had first tried other, less intrusive, investigative techniques.
"They'd want to bring these cases into the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the feds would tell them no (expletive) way," a former Justice Department official said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/11/dea-wiretap-operation-riverside-california/75484076/

Justice officials fear nation's biggest wiretap operation may not be legal

Brad Heath and Brett Kelman, USA TODAY 4:41 p.m. EST November 11, 2015

US Courts Ignore States' Rights

The White House and the Department of Justice ignore courts, why not states too. Why not everybody ignore the courts. Just close them and save money. Go back to executions on the spot. Big fish eat the little fish, and he who has the gold makes the rules. Why not.

[From article]
Following last week’s controversial U.S. Supreme Court rulings on Obamacare and gay marriage, voters believe more strongly that individual states should have the right to turn their backs on the federal courts.
[. . .]
Perhaps even more disturbing is that the voters who feel strongest about overriding the federal courts – Republicans and conservatives - are those who traditionally have been the most supportive of the Constitution and separation of powers. During the Obama years, however, these voters have become increasingly suspicious and even hostile toward the federal government.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2015/support_grows_for_states_to_ignore_the_federal_courts

Support Grows for States to Ignore the Federal Courts
Friday, July 03, 2015

US Judge Threatens to Hold IRS Attorneys and Commissioner, and Justice Department Attorneys in Contempt

U.S District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan today [July 29, 2015] threatened to hold the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department attorneys in contempt of court after the IRS failed to produce status reports and newly recovered emails of Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS, as he had ordered on July 1, 2015.

The way that the Obama-Holder doctrine works is that inconvenient laws may be ignored. It appears that this unaware US Court judge did not read the memo. In addition in Washington DC, as in Cambridge MA laws are optional. So in case the judge follows through with his threats and does detain the mendacious, deceptive abusive of power attorneys, the White House will have to act and issue pardons for all of his fellow elitist, morally superior lawyers. Then it is likely the Judge will be impeached by the civil rights division of the Department of Justice for discrimination against these attorneys who are unable to comply with the laws, due to their predisposition to commit crime. It is an ethnic problem which gives the lawyers standing to file with the Civil Rights Division.

[From article]
Judicial Watch announced that U.S District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan today threatened to hold the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department attorneys in contempt of court after the IRS failed to produce status reports and newly recovered emails of Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS, as he had ordered on July 1, 2015.
During the a status hearing today, Sullivan warned that the failure to follow his order was serious and the IRS and Justice Department’s excuses for not following his July 1 order were “indefensible, ridiculous, and absurd.” He asked the IRS’ Justice Department lawyer Geoffrey Klimas, “Why didn’t the IRS comply” with his court order and “why shouldn’t the Court hold the Commissioner of the IRS in contempt.” Judge Sullivan referenced his contempt findings against Justice Department prosecutors in the prosecution of late Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) and reminded the Justice Department attorney he had the ability to detain him for contempt. Warning he would tolerate no further disregard of his orders, Judge Sullivan said, “I will haul into court the IRS Commissioner to hold him personally into contempt.”
[. . .]
“In a dramatic court hearing today, Judge Sullivan made it clear he would personally hold accountable the IRS Commissioner Koskinen and Justice Department attorneys for any further contempt of his court orders in Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The missing and-then-not missing Lois Lerner saga is a stark example of the Obama administration’s contempt for a federal court and the rule of law. That Obama administration officials would risk jail rather than disclose these Lerner documents shows that the IRS scandal has just gotten a whole lot worse.”

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/federal-judge-threatens-to-hold-irs-commissioner-doj-lawyers-in-contempt-of-court-over-lerner/

Federal Judge Threatens To Hold IRS Commissioner, DOJ Lawyers in Contempt of Court over Lerner
JULY 29, 2015

Judicial Watch

U.S. Judge Orders Explanation For State Department Delay Responding to AP FOIA Request About Hillary Clinton Documents

[From article]
At a contentious hearing last week, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon demanded explanations for why some of the AP's requests received no reply for four years or more before the wire service filed suit in March.
[. . .]
However, Leon accused Olson of responding with "convoluted gobbledygook" when she insisted that the State Department's processing of those emails would satisfy the AP's request for records about Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin's transition to a special part-time position at State.
[. . .]
"What you just said, Ms. Olson, made no sense," the judge replied. "You're failing to distinguish between documents created by the State Department independently of Hillary Clinton's emails — with Hillary Clinton's emails. And you're giving me some kind of convoluted gobbledygook. about how the emails contain within them the independently created documents relating to Huma Abedin's appointment as a special government counsel. ...That is nonsensical."
[. . .]
"Have it by next week. Have it by next week when we have our hearing. Do you hear me?" the judge snapped. He also ordered the State official responsible for FOIA handling to appear at the planned hearing.
[. . .]
"The State Department's not going to have the luxury of saying, because we're focusing on Hillary's emails, we're doing so at the cost and expense of four-year-old requests. So, that's not going to be an excuse," the judge said. "In my judgment, a four-year-old request gets a priority over a recent request."
[. . .]
A lawyer for the AP, Jay Ward Brown, told Leon that the wire service was trying to find out what Abedin did during her time as a "special government employee." However, the judge was also curious about what Abedin does currently.
"Where is she now, this Huma person? ... Did you Google her? ... Have you done LinkedIn?" asked Leon. "You've got to check out on the social-media scene to see what she's doing."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/07/judge-slams-state-department-over-hillary-clintonrelated-210878.html

Judge slams State Department over Hillary Clinton-related records
By JOSH GERSTEIN

7/20/15 2:24 PM EDT

Lawless Defiant White House Causes More Turmoil in Nation

[From article]
Goosed into action by an angry federal judge, federal immigration authorities will go door-to-door demanding illegal immigrants return the three-year amnesty approvals the Obama administration issued to them in defiance of a court order.
Those who don’t return their three-year permits will have them terminated at the end of this month, the National Immigrant Justice Center, one of the advocacy groups briefed on authorities’ plan, said in a statement preparing immigrants for what could be a traumatic encounter.
[. . .]
They’re scrambling to meet an end-of-month deadline set by Judge Andrew S. Hanen for recapturing thousands of three-year amnesties the department issued even after the court had entered an injunction halting the new amnesty program.
Unless all of the permits are recovered, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson could personally have to appear in court to explain the foul-up, Judge Hanen said in an order earlier this month.
[. . .]
In a new fact sheet, USCIS raised the number of erroneous “Employment Authorization Documents,” or EADs, it approved from about 2,500 to 2,600 — the third time it’s boosted that estimate.
[. . .]
But Judge Hanen, in a case brought by Texas and 25 other states, ruled that Mr. Obama likely broke the law in forming his amnesty. The judge issued an injunction halting it on Feb. 16, and thought he’d nipped the entire program.
Several weeks later, however, administration lawyers admitted they’d been approving applications beginning in November, and that more than 100,000 Dreamers had been granted three-year status. Worse yet, the administration has twice come back to Judge Hanen and reported that thousands more approvals were sent even after the Feb. 16 injunction — a clear violation of the court order.
[. . .]
“The government has conceded that it has directly violated this court’s order in its May 7, 2015 advisory, yet, as of today, two months have passed since the advisory and it has not remediated its own violative behavior,” the judge wrote. “That is unacceptable and, as far as the Government’s attorneys are concerned, completely unprofessional.”
He set an Aug. 19 hearing, and said unless the government can fix things by July 31, each of the defendants named in the case — Mr. Johnson and his top lieutenants in the immigration agencies — would have to appear to explain themselves.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/15/illegal-immigrants-obama-amnesty-approvals-to-be-s/#ixzz3gAqPBeDD

Feds going door-to-door to seize illegal immigrants’ Obama amnesty approvals
By Stephen Dinan

The Washington Times

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Government Censors Statistics On Vaccine Court Web Pages

[From article]

Recent Rise in Vaccine Victims’ Court Decisions and Concessions Not Reflected in Revised Government Chart
In March, the federal government removed the latest vaccine injury court statistics—more than a year’s worth of data—from one of its publicly reported charts. It was an abrupt departure from the normal practice of updating the figures monthly.
Wiping the latest data means the “adjudication” chart on a government website no longer reflects the recent, sharp rise in court victories for plaintiffs who claimed their children were seriously injured or killed by one or more vaccines.



Since January of 2014, twice as many victims have won court decisions than the previous eight years combined. In these court decisions, a judge ruled the evidence showed vaccines “more likely than not” caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
Also on the rise is the number of vaccine injury cases the government has “conceded”: up 55% in a little over one year.
As a result of the recent website changes, neither of these trends is reflected on the current “adjudication” chart.
[. . .]
Only about one injury case for every million doses of vaccines is compensated in vaccine court. Adverse events occur more frequently, according to vaccine warning labels, but rarely end up in the little-known vaccine court. Still, vaccine court statistics can be useful in reflecting trends.
The number of flu vaccine cases conceded by the government since January of 2014 is more than double the previous eight years combined. The adjudication chart only reflects half of the current number.
[. . .]
Since 1988, over 15,916 claims have been filed in vaccine court. 4,083 were compensated; 9,893 were dismissed. The total amount of money paid to victims is approximately $3.1 billion.

https://sharylattkisson.com/government-wipes-recent-vaccine-injury-data-from-website/

Government Wipes Recent Vaccine Injury Data from Website
by Sharyl Attkisson
on May 31, 2015

Updated: Growing Pattern Of White House Lawlessness in Courts; US Appeals Court Upholds District Court Rulling

Posted April 10, 2015 4:52 PM ET; Last updated May 26, 2015 6:37 PM ET



Are judges shocked that lawyers lie? This is the pervasive pattern in media. Journalists ignore facts, and publish advocacy for social issues to please liberal elitists in government. Useful idiots try to destroy the nation assisting extremist leftists. They fail to keep ordinary voters and taxpayers informed. They are publishing propaganda not news. Under the Obama-Holder doctrine laws are optional. Inconvenient laws may be ignored by selected persons. The courts are being used for "social justice" not legal justice in support leftist media propaganda. 

[From article]

The lawsuit was filed in December and on Feb. 16, Judge Andrew S. Hanen,of Federal District Court in Brownsville ordered a preliminary injunctionon the programs while he ruled on the constitutional issues in the suit.
In a statement, Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, said Mr. Obama had tried to impose “a drastic change in immigration policy” without the consent of Congress. The appeals court decision is “a victory for those committed to preserving the rule of law in America,” Mr. Paxton said. “We will continue to fight the brazen lawlessness that has become a trademark of the Obama administration.”
White House officials said the ruling was not surprising, but they declined to discuss the next legal move for the administration.
“Today, two judges of the Fifth Circuit chose to misrepresent the facts and the law,” a White House spokeswoman, Brandi Hoffine, said. “The president’s actions were designed to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy and keep our communities safe. They are squarely within the bounds of his authority and they are the right thing to do for the country.”
The Justice Department could appeal the ruling on the emergency stay to the full appeals court, but legal experts said it was more likely that the administration would skip that conservative court and ask the Supreme Court to allow the programs to proceed.
The legal wrangling suggests that Mr. Obama and his aides may have underestimated the legal and political challenges to offering protections to more than four million illegal immigrants without a congressional vote.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/us/fifth-circuit-court-of-appeals-rules-on-obama-immigration-plan.html?_r=0

Appeals Court Denies Bid to Let Obama Immigration Plan Proceed
By JULIA PRESTON

MAY 26, 2015
New York Times

* * *

[From article]
Throughout Barack Obama’s tenure in the White House he’s been accused of leading a lawless presidency and cheapening the rule of law through his Department of Justice. Many say these accusations are simply based in politics, but a closer look at the way the Department of Justice has handled multiple cases in federal court suggest misleading or lying to judges is a habit, not a mistake.
[. . .]
Twenty-six states are suing against the action, and in February, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen issued a stay in the implementation of the order granting temporary amnesty and work permits to millions of illegal immigrants. Shortly after blocking the implementation, Hanen found out DOJ attorneys had issued false information to the court. He accused them of misleading the court because Immigration and Customs Enforcement, under DOJ guidance, had ignored his order to halt implementation and gave temporary amnesty and work permits to more than 100,000 people.
[. . .]
Late last year, U.S. District Court Judge Francis Allegra accused DOJ attorneys of not only being misleading in their arguments but of defrauding the court in the case of retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent Jay Dobyns, in Jay Dobyns v. United States of America.
[. . .]
When it was discovered in 2013 that the Justice Department was monitoring the private phone lines and emails of Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen and his parents, there were many questions surrounding how the DOJ was able to get approval from a judge to do. The department claimed in an affidavit that Rosen was a criminal co-conspirator who had potentially broken the law and committed a crime for seeking classified information from a source. But when the DOJ was caught monitoring him, it argued plans to prosecute Rosen were never in the works. Did DOJ attorneys lie to a federal judge about the “criminal co-conspirator” classification in order to get court approval to monitor him and his sources?
[. . .]
Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice has been willing to mislead federal judges, ignore court orders and allegedly defraud the court so long as political goals of the White House are reached. This is the rule, not the exception.

http://thehill.com/opinion/katie-pavlich/238002-katie-pavlich-the-deception-of-the-obama-department-of-justice

Katie Pavlich: The deception of the Obama Department of Justice
By Katie Pavlich

04/06/15 05:00 PM EDT

Did Tsarnaev Jury Over Charge?

Gentleman Vasquez, says, "Dzhokhar will now pay for the price of two in a battle of symbolisms." Writers have the license and freedom to speak in meaningless symbolic terms. Jurors are sworn to consider only the evidence to determine if the defendant violated the statutes in question. Suggesting all twelve jurors found the ungrateful murderous immigrant guilty of his brother's crimes is ludicrous. But it is typical of young minds subjected to relentless anti American propaganda in public schools like CRLS.

http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20150522/NEWS/150528741

Bridging the Gap column: Tsarnaev is paying for two
By Luis Vasquez
Posted May. 22, 2015 at 8:36 AM
CAMBRIDGE Chronicle

Woman Whose Image Appeared in Anti Muslim Film Loses Court Fight To Censor Her Role

[From article]
Weighing in on a global controversy, a federal appeals court on Monday found that YouTube can't be forced to take down an anti-Muslim video that sparked worldwide protests, finding that such an order tramples on free speech rights.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a previous ruling and backed Google-owned YouTube in its legal battle with Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress who received death threats after she was spliced into a 2012 video called "Innocence of Muslims" that cast her as disparaging the prophet Mohammed.
A special 11-judge panel, with only one judge dissenting, backed Google and other Internet companies that howled in protest when the video was originally ordered removed from the Web a year and a half ago. The panel sympathized with Garcia's plight but stressed that the law is not on her side.
[. . .]
Garcia later discovered her scene had instead been used in the anti-Muslim video "Innocence of Muslims."
When released, it sparked protests in the Muslim world and was at one point cited in the debate over the fatal attacks on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya. As it turned out, Garcia's voice was dubbed over with an insult to Mohammed. She has since been inundated with death threats, forcing her to live underground, according to court papers.

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_28138854/google-youtube-win-heated-legal-fight-over-anti

Google, YouTube win First Amendment fight over anti-Muslim video
By Howard Mintz
hmintz (at) mercurynews.com

Collateral Damage From Obama-Clinton Benghazi Lies

[From article]
The 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Google, which owns YouTube, saying the previous decision by a three-member panel of the same court gave “short shrift” to the First Amendment and constituted prior restraint — a prohibition on free speech before it takes place.
“The mandatory injunction censored and suppressed a politically significant film — based upon a dubious and unprecedented theory of copyright,” Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote in an opinion joined by nine other judges. “In so doing, the panel deprived the public of the ability to view firsthand, and judge for themselves, a film at the center of an international uproar.”
[. . .]
The film sparked rioting by those who considered it blasphemous to the Prophet Muhammad. President Barack Obama and other world leaders asked Google to take it down.
The larger 9th Circuit panel said it was sympathetic to Garcia’s concerns, but copyright law is not intended to protect people from the type of harm Garcia claimed to have suffered, including death threats.

http://nypost.com/2015/05/18/court-says-google-shouldnt-have-been-forced-to-take-down-anti-muslim-film/

Court says Google shouldn’t have been forced to take down anti-Muslim film
By Associated Press
New York Post
May 18, 2015 | 3:43pm

Boston Marathon Bomber Sentenced To Death

Left to right
Krystle Campbell, 29
Sean Collier, 27, MIT Policeman
Lingzi Lu, 23, Graduate Student at Boston University From China
Martin Richard, 8

All Killed By Tsarnaev Brothers in April 2013 

[From article]

A jury's ruling today to sentence marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death is "justice" and a warning Boston "will not tolerate terrorism," survivors and police said after the verdict.
"This is nothing to celebrate. This is justice," said first-responder Michael Ward. “He wanted to go to hell and he’s gonna get there early."
The verdict against Tsarnaev, who'll turn 22 in July, was announced by U.S. District Court Judge George A. O'Toole Jr.'s courtroom clerk Paul Lyness. Tsarnaev showed no emotion as the verdict was read.
Marathon bombing survivor Adrianne Haslet-Davis, who lost a third of her left leg in the bombing, told the Herald she's "happy with the verdict."
"My heart goes out to everyone in the survivor community and to the victims' families," she added. "It's still a lot to process right now."
Only three of the 12 jurors bought into the defense argument that Tsarnaev was influenced by his older brother Tamerlan. The jurors unanimously agreed that Tsarnaev showed no remorse for the marathon attack and its aftermath that killed four young people, maimed 17 and injured hundreds.
The jurors unanimously voted to put him to death for the week of terror.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/herald_bulldog/2015/05/jury_sentences_dzhokhar_tsarnaev_to_death_for

Jury sentences Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death for marathon attack
Friday, May 15, 2015
By: Laurel J. Sweet, Joe Dwinell and Owen Boss
Boston Herald

* * *

Anne Stevenson states, "we hope that Jahar has a road to redemption while he’s behind bars, which includes education and social interactions with others who can help him give peace to those he hurt." Stevenson arrogantly speaks for others, but does not reveal what children value the convicted mass murderer's life, as hinted in the headline. America granted him and his family asylum from an oppressive nation, showered them with gifts, gave them freedom. The brothers showed their gratitude by killing people who did him no harm. American veterans live in shelters and on the streets. What values are promoted by this essayist?

http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20150515/NEWS/150517388

Guest Column: Children of Cambridge value bomber's life
By Anne Stevenson
Posted May. 15, 2015 at 11:26 AM
Updated at 11:33 AM

Cambridge Chronicle

U.S. Judge Shot In Leg Outside His Detroit Home

[From article]
Police said two male suspects around age 18 to 20 apparently approached Berg around 9:10 p.m. as he was outside his home on Oak Drive.
They tried to force him into his house. He refused, a struggle ensued, and one of the suspects fired one shot, hitting Berg in the leg.
The suspects escaped in a dark-colored Dodge Charger, police said.
[. . .]
"This hits close to home, I'm a loyal, dedicated Detroiter but we have got to get a grasp on this crime problem. I'd like to think these incidents are isolated but more and more it's hitting closer to home. I'm praying for Terry and his family."
Berg, a Detroit native who is married with three children, was nominated to the federal bench by President Obama in 2012. Before that he worked as a federal prosecutor for the U.S. Attorneys office in Detroit for more than 20 years.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2015/03/05/federal-district-judge-terrence-berg-shooting/24479439/

Federal judge shot in leg in attempted robbery in Detroit
By Gina Damron, Katrease Stafford, Bill Laitner and Tresa Baldas
Detroit Free Press
12:43 a.m. EST March 6, 2015