Down here in the deep southland, justice has been fleeting over the years. The only true program for pure justice, has yet to be embraced. We only now deal with what we have. Somewhere in the deep, dark future of our existence; the justice we so desperately need, shall appear. Until then? We have, what we have.
LOUISIANA JUSTICE FOUNDATION. * * * * * * * * * * A conceptual ideal not found in the ephemeral or perfunctory; it is conclusive and inclusive. Justice is a primal force, balanced by prevailing wind. We live with its outcomes. Its evasiveness deprives us. The masses plead for it. The elite tamper with it. The search for it is endless. As thought; never embraced, merely fondled. Compromised. Justice in its finality, complete.
August 2005
Never Forget
Wrongful Convictions & INJUSTICES In Louisiana
Release Michael Jarvis Cobb
us.1lajustice@yahoo.com
Baron "Scooter" Pikes murdered by Taser.
Jena Six Defense
Scott Nugent trial jury selection starts Aug 30, 2010; Winnfield, La. -- as a result of the "torture" & subsequent death of Baron Pikes.
us.1lajustice@yahoo.com
Baron "Scooter" Pikes murdered by Taser.
Jena Six Defense
Scott Nugent trial jury selection starts Aug 30, 2010; Winnfield, La. -- as a result of the "torture" & subsequent death of Baron Pikes.
Justice and Peace Advocacy
Claiborne One - Guardian Journal - April 2, 2009 * claiborneone.org
Gun traced back to origin
State police wrapping up investigation
MICHELLE BATES, Editor
The handgun allegedly aimed at two Homer Police officers resulting in the death of an elderly Homer man has been traced back to its origin.
According to Louisiana State Police Troop G Spokesman Doug Pierrelee, the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) traced the handgun back to its place of origin. This does not mean the weapon has been traced back to its owner or any one specific person. It means just exactly what it is – its place of origin.
Bernard Monroe, Sr., 73, was shot and killed Friday, February 20 by a Homer police officer after he allegedly engaged two officers with a gun. Just before the shooting occurred, the two officers involved were pursuing his son, Sean Monroe, on foot, when that pursuit ended in the elder Monroe’s front yard.
Currently, investigators are assembling all the information gathered over the last several weeks, but they are waiting on completed reports from other agencies including the ATF.
“Our findings are our observations and collections, which include DNA testing from other professionals,” he said. “They include analysis by the ATF. This is the culmination of all these efforts that we submit. We don’t make a ruling. What we’re asked to do is to produce something that can be used to make a decision on this.”
The state police is wrapping up its investigation and has been working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), but the two agencies haven’t been working on the same aspects of the case. While state police investigators have been collecting physical evidence and piecing together what happened, the FBI is looking for any wrongdoing or any misuse of power.
“They’re (FBI) trying to investigate the potential of that happening (wrongdoing or misuse of power) in this case,” Pierrelee said. “Our concern is ‘What was happening when everything was going normal, to (the) pursuit, the tasering, a shooting, and what happened until we got there.’ That’s what people should expect when we turn this in. We’re only interested in those things that we can measure, those things that we can collect, identify and analyze.”
Steve Hall, agent in charge from the Shreveport Field Office, said their investigation is still ongoing, but they are making “good progress” in the case.
Once the facts are put together and the reports are written, state police findings will be submitted to the District Attorney of the Second Judicial District, Jonathan Stewart. It will then be up to Stewart to assemble a grand jury to decide whether there is enough evidence to carry the case to a trial.
“I will get their report, and I will review it, then make a determination on how to proceed,” Stewart said. “If I make a decision where further investigation is needed, then I will call together a grand jury, and I would not be able to make the report public until the (DA’s) investigation is over with.”
The function of a grand jury is to determine whether there is enough evidence to bring charges against a person. If they find that there is enough, they will file what is called a “true bill.” If they don’t, they will file a “no bill.”
According to law, there is a third option in Louisiana, “By pretermitting entirely the matter investigated.” This requires nine of the 12 grand jurors to determine there is not enough evidence presented to determine if a person should or should not be charged with a crime. This means they don’t know, and if that’s the case, it will be up to the district attorney himself whether to accept the grand jury’s findings or move forward with any charges.
Controversy has swarmed the small Town of Homer since Monroe’s death. Witnesses at the scene have said the elderly man did not have a gun in his possession at the time of the shooting. Tensions have run high, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has called the FBI, the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s office to investigate several aspects of the incident.
The U.S. Justice Department sent an assessment team from its Community Relations Service branch to Homer to help keep the peace in the community while the investigation is ongoing.
On Friday, March 13, a community forum, sponsored by the Justice Department, was held to allow the community to voice its grievances and say what they feel about the situation in general. Many voiced their contempt of the Homer Police Department, but many also voiced their desire for change in their community.
Most of those in attendance were from the Pearl Street and Buck Bottom areas of Homer, as well as Mayor David Newell, the town council and others.
State police wrapping up investigation
MICHELLE BATES, Editor
The handgun allegedly aimed at two Homer Police officers resulting in the death of an elderly Homer man has been traced back to its origin.
According to Louisiana State Police Troop G Spokesman Doug Pierrelee, the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) traced the handgun back to its place of origin. This does not mean the weapon has been traced back to its owner or any one specific person. It means just exactly what it is – its place of origin.
Bernard Monroe, Sr., 73, was shot and killed Friday, February 20 by a Homer police officer after he allegedly engaged two officers with a gun. Just before the shooting occurred, the two officers involved were pursuing his son, Sean Monroe, on foot, when that pursuit ended in the elder Monroe’s front yard.
Currently, investigators are assembling all the information gathered over the last several weeks, but they are waiting on completed reports from other agencies including the ATF.
“Our findings are our observations and collections, which include DNA testing from other professionals,” he said. “They include analysis by the ATF. This is the culmination of all these efforts that we submit. We don’t make a ruling. What we’re asked to do is to produce something that can be used to make a decision on this.”
The state police is wrapping up its investigation and has been working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), but the two agencies haven’t been working on the same aspects of the case. While state police investigators have been collecting physical evidence and piecing together what happened, the FBI is looking for any wrongdoing or any misuse of power.
“They’re (FBI) trying to investigate the potential of that happening (wrongdoing or misuse of power) in this case,” Pierrelee said. “Our concern is ‘What was happening when everything was going normal, to (the) pursuit, the tasering, a shooting, and what happened until we got there.’ That’s what people should expect when we turn this in. We’re only interested in those things that we can measure, those things that we can collect, identify and analyze.”
Steve Hall, agent in charge from the Shreveport Field Office, said their investigation is still ongoing, but they are making “good progress” in the case.
Once the facts are put together and the reports are written, state police findings will be submitted to the District Attorney of the Second Judicial District, Jonathan Stewart. It will then be up to Stewart to assemble a grand jury to decide whether there is enough evidence to carry the case to a trial.
“I will get their report, and I will review it, then make a determination on how to proceed,” Stewart said. “If I make a decision where further investigation is needed, then I will call together a grand jury, and I would not be able to make the report public until the (DA’s) investigation is over with.”
The function of a grand jury is to determine whether there is enough evidence to bring charges against a person. If they find that there is enough, they will file what is called a “true bill.” If they don’t, they will file a “no bill.”
According to law, there is a third option in Louisiana, “By pretermitting entirely the matter investigated.” This requires nine of the 12 grand jurors to determine there is not enough evidence presented to determine if a person should or should not be charged with a crime. This means they don’t know, and if that’s the case, it will be up to the district attorney himself whether to accept the grand jury’s findings or move forward with any charges.
Controversy has swarmed the small Town of Homer since Monroe’s death. Witnesses at the scene have said the elderly man did not have a gun in his possession at the time of the shooting. Tensions have run high, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has called the FBI, the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s office to investigate several aspects of the incident.
The U.S. Justice Department sent an assessment team from its Community Relations Service branch to Homer to help keep the peace in the community while the investigation is ongoing.
On Friday, March 13, a community forum, sponsored by the Justice Department, was held to allow the community to voice its grievances and say what they feel about the situation in general. Many voiced their contempt of the Homer Police Department, but many also voiced their desire for change in their community.
Most of those in attendance were from the Pearl Street and Buck Bottom areas of Homer, as well as Mayor David Newell, the town council and others.
August 5, 2010 | Bernard Monroe | Homer, Louisiana
Monroe wrongful death suit settled
...but it’s not be over yet
MICHELLE BATES, Editor
The civil suit against the Town of Homer and two officers involved in the shooting death of a Homer man has been settled, but it’s not necessarily over.
Bernard Monroe Sr. was shot and killed by former Homer Police Officer Tim Cox on Friday, February 20, 2009, in the front yard of his home. According to police, Cox and former Officer Joseph Henry were pursuing Monroe’s son, Sean. The foot pursuit ended in Monroe’s front yard where Cox allegedly chased the younger Monroe out of the house. Initial reports say Monroe was shot when he allegedly engaged the two officers with a loaded handgun. Witnesses, family members and friends say Monroe did not have a gun in his possession at the time of the shooting.
Along with the Louisiana State Police, which conducted the physical investigation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began an inquiry as well into any violations of civil rights allegations soon after the incident. That investigation was still ongoing, according to Special Agent Andre Jeanfreau, acting spokesperson for the FBI, New Orleans Division. Officials would not give a timeline or an estimated date as to when the investigation would be complete.
“We do acknowledge that these are open and ongoing cases, but we can’t comment on the specifics of the case,” Jeanfreau said.
In Monday night’s regular monthly meeting, the town council unanimously agreed to accept a motion to settle with the Monroe family after more than a year of investigation and heartache on both sides. According to the agreement released to the media, the town has agreed to pay Louise M. Monroe, Monroe Sr.’s widow, a total sum of $125,000, with the first payment of $50,000 to be made immediately and $25,000 each year for the next three years.
On the same note, though, a “gag order” of sorts has been issued, which orders parties and attorneys on both sides not to speak to the media, except to acknowledge the agreement.
“Although the parties understand that this settlement document may be a public record and therefore discoverable via a public records request, the parties and their counsel agree that this settlement and the terms thereof shall not be publicized, promoted, or communicated (other than to acknowledge the settlement and this agreement) in the media, on the internet, or otherwise in public as it is the parties desire to resolve this matter fully,” the agreement stated.
The agreement also releases the Town of Homer, Cox and Henry from any liability, which means they cannot be sued on this same case again.
However, this settlement does not mean the town or the officers are admitting to any wrongdoing.
“It is understood and agreed that this is a compromise settlement of doubtful and disputed claims, that the parties herein released expressly deny any and all liability whatsoever in the premises, this compromise settlement being entered into primarily for the purpose of avoiding further litigation,” the agreement states.
Both officers were cleared of any criminal wrongdoing by a grand jury called by the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office in February. After two days of looking into the case, the grand jury came back with a “no true bill,” which means they didn’t find enough evidence to charge the two officers with any criminal charges.
Also, the state police report on the Monroe case is still tied up with the attorney general’s office, citing ongoing litigation in New Orleans on a case involving the deaths of five people after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. A grand jury also cleared a physician who was blamed for the five deaths, and those records were returned to the charity hospital. However, local and national media outlets disputed the return of those records saying they were public record, even though portions of those records are the patient records of the deceased.
The attorney general’s office has filed suit, asking the Louisiana Supreme Court to better define public records law. That case was handed back down to a lower appellate court for reconsideration, and as of press time, there is no word where that case stands.
Until the New Orleans case is completed, Attorney General Buddy Caldwell has put a hold on all records unless they have been prescribed, or the cases have been permanently closed.
The Latest Injustice-Collateral Episode
JAPA
New Orleans to Brazil
International Tribunal on Katrina & Rita
60"s Revisited in 2007
Prelude to "New Watts" Riots
Obama - St Petersburg,Florida
Q-&-A *Let the Brother Talk* [Excellent]Obama
Cruel & Unusual Punishment?
Kennedy v. Louisiana
Editorial of The New York SunJune 26, 2008
We were frankly amazed yesterday when the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision on the case of Patrick Kennedy v. Louisiana, that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty for the crime of raping a small child. The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, with Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joining, runs 38 pages, but its central argument can be summarized as follows:
"Cruel and unusual punishment," which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, derives its meaning from "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." These evolved standards, according to Justice Kennedy, require a distinction, "between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other." Citing precedents, Justice Kennedy claims this distinction shows that the "severity and irrevocability" of child rape cannot be compared to murder "in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public."
It strikes us that one can coherently oppose capital punishment in all cases. But if one acknowledges, as the majority opinion did, that some crimes are so awful as to warrant the death penalty, then it is outrageous to hold, in the same breath, that the rape of a small child can never, under any circumstances, fall in that category.
As for the evolving standards of decency, it strikes us that a legislature would be better than a court. Certainly in this ruling the Court has demonstrated itself utterly unequal to the task of conceiving America's "evolved sense of decency." It's a comfort to see that the next president will be closer to the mark. Senators Obama and McCain both came out strongly against the ruling.
Editorial of The New York SunJune 26, 2008
We were frankly amazed yesterday when the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision on the case of Patrick Kennedy v. Louisiana, that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty for the crime of raping a small child. The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, with Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joining, runs 38 pages, but its central argument can be summarized as follows:
"Cruel and unusual punishment," which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, derives its meaning from "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." These evolved standards, according to Justice Kennedy, require a distinction, "between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other." Citing precedents, Justice Kennedy claims this distinction shows that the "severity and irrevocability" of child rape cannot be compared to murder "in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public."
It strikes us that one can coherently oppose capital punishment in all cases. But if one acknowledges, as the majority opinion did, that some crimes are so awful as to warrant the death penalty, then it is outrageous to hold, in the same breath, that the rape of a small child can never, under any circumstances, fall in that category.
As for the evolving standards of decency, it strikes us that a legislature would be better than a court. Certainly in this ruling the Court has demonstrated itself utterly unequal to the task of conceiving America's "evolved sense of decency." It's a comfort to see that the next president will be closer to the mark. Senators Obama and McCain both came out strongly against the ruling.
Somethings to Remember
- Life After Wrongful Conviction
- Public Defender Review to Start
- Palestine Information Center
- JFP
- THIRD DAY SAINTS
- Peoples Hurricane Relief Fund Oversight Coalition
- US Human Rights Organization - Member Organizations
- Special Rapporteur on Racism US Mission 2008
- USHRO-National Office- Atlanta, Georgia
- Constitution Project
- NLADA
- Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:Justice Denied
- Effectively Ineffective | Harvard Law Review-March 2005 [pdf]
- Judiciary's Authority to provide relief:Justice Denied
- USAG's remarks to ACCD-24June09 [pdf]
- Race-ing Prosecutors - Harvard CRCL [pdf]
THE RAM'S HORN BLOWING
Blowing the ram's horn.
If you cannot hear the signaling of a new era; you are deaf. Yet, are we free enough yet? La.
Not in Louisiana. Or Mississippi. Or Tennessee.
Mississippi based Nationalists - EURO Conference in Memphis - David Duke
SOUNDING THE RAM'S HORN
Massachusetts Church Burned in early morning Nov 5th
He - [Bishop Bryant Robinson Jr., Macedonia Church of God in Christ] - told reporters he was jarred awake by news of the fire after an evening of celebrating U.S. Sen. Barack H. Obama's presidential victory.
Kurt N. Schwartz, Gov. Deval L. Patrick's undersecretary of the state Executive Office of Public Safety, traveled to the church site to stand with city police and fire officials as well as investigators from the state police, the FBI and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Post-election church arson at predominantly black parish probed as possible hate crime
Video
If you cannot hear the signaling of a new era; you are deaf. Yet, are we free enough yet? La.
Not in Louisiana. Or Mississippi. Or Tennessee.
Mississippi based Nationalists - EURO Conference in Memphis - David Duke
SOUNDING THE RAM'S HORN
Massachusetts Church Burned in early morning Nov 5th
He - [Bishop Bryant Robinson Jr., Macedonia Church of God in Christ] - told reporters he was jarred awake by news of the fire after an evening of celebrating U.S. Sen. Barack H. Obama's presidential victory.
Kurt N. Schwartz, Gov. Deval L. Patrick's undersecretary of the state Executive Office of Public Safety, traveled to the church site to stand with city police and fire officials as well as investigators from the state police, the FBI and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Post-election church arson at predominantly black parish probed as possible hate crime
Video
LOUISIANA SEEKS CHANGE ON DEATH PENALTY
Louisiana seeks change on death penaltyMonday, July 21st, 2008 5:51 pm Lyle Denniston Comments Off Print This Post
The state of Louisiana on Monday asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling a month ago striking down the death penalty for the crime of child rape. The rehearing petition, citing an omission in the Court’s opinion of any mention of a federal law on that issue, was filed late Monday afternoon. The petition in Kennedy v. Louisiana (07-343) can be found here.
Noting that the Court “almost never grants petitions for rehearing,” the state’s filing said this was “the rare exception.” It cited an 1875 ruling (Ambler v. Whipple), saying that an omission “material to the decision of the case” makes “a strong appeal for reargument.”
The petition said that either the rehearing should be granted, or the Court should “first seek the views” of the U.S. Solicitor General. Earlier, after the discovery of the omitted statute from the Court’s opinion, the Solicitor General’s office said that, if a rehearing plea were filed, it would examine it and “consider what steps are appropriate.”
Under the Court’s rules, a rehearing petition is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court “at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision.” The other side in a case is not allowed to file a response, unless the Court specifically asks it to do so. The Court’s rules add that, unless there are “extraordinary circumstances,” rehearing will not be granted unless a response is first requested.
The decision in the Louisiana case, issued on June 25, came on a vote of 5-4, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writing for the majority. One of those five would have to support rehearing, presumably along with the four dissenters, for that to happen.
Read the rest of this entry »
The state of Louisiana on Monday asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling a month ago striking down the death penalty for the crime of child rape. The rehearing petition, citing an omission in the Court’s opinion of any mention of a federal law on that issue, was filed late Monday afternoon. The petition in Kennedy v. Louisiana (07-343) can be found here.
Noting that the Court “almost never grants petitions for rehearing,” the state’s filing said this was “the rare exception.” It cited an 1875 ruling (Ambler v. Whipple), saying that an omission “material to the decision of the case” makes “a strong appeal for reargument.”
The petition said that either the rehearing should be granted, or the Court should “first seek the views” of the U.S. Solicitor General. Earlier, after the discovery of the omitted statute from the Court’s opinion, the Solicitor General’s office said that, if a rehearing plea were filed, it would examine it and “consider what steps are appropriate.”
Under the Court’s rules, a rehearing petition is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court “at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision.” The other side in a case is not allowed to file a response, unless the Court specifically asks it to do so. The Court’s rules add that, unless there are “extraordinary circumstances,” rehearing will not be granted unless a response is first requested.
The decision in the Louisiana case, issued on June 25, came on a vote of 5-4, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writing for the majority. One of those five would have to support rehearing, presumably along with the four dissenters, for that to happen.
Read the rest of this entry »
Bold Legal Maneuver-by-the Justice Department
U.S. urges new hearing in death penalty caseMonday, July 28th, 2008 5:45 pm Lyle Denniston Comments Off Print This Post
Email this • Share on Facebook • Share on LinkedIn • Digg This!
The Justice Department, in a bold legal maneuver, on Monday afternoon asked the Supreme Court to rehear a major case on the death penalty, saying the basis of the decision had been “undermined.” The decision at issue was the 5-4 ruling on June 25 in Kennedy v. Louisiana (07-343), barring the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. The federal government was not involved in that case. Although the Court’s rules do not allow non-parties to ask that a case be reheard, the Solicitor General’s office filed a motion asking permission to do so, arguing that the Court should grant the state of Louisiana’s plea for rehearing. The motion can be found here.
“The United States,” Acting Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre argued in the motion, “has a substantial interest in rehearing because the Court’s decision casts grave doubt on the validity of a recent Act of Congress and Executive Order of the President authorizing capital punishment for child rapists under the Uniform Code of Military Justice”– the law that governs crimes committed by those in military service.
The motion is based primarily upon the fact that the Court, in striking down Louisiana’s law on the death sentence for child rape, did not take account of a federal law authorizing that penalty in the military justice system. No one involved in the case had mentioned that law to the Court, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s opinion for the majority noted the supposed absence of a federal law on the subject in a survey of whether there was a “national consensus” for or against such punishment. The omission, discovered by a military law expert and mentioned on his blog, led Louisiana to ask formally that the case be reopened to consider the military law provision.
The Solicitor General’s office reacted earlier to the omission by saying that, if rehearing were sought, it would “consider what steps are appropriate.” On Monday, the answer came, one week after Louisiana asked for a new review.
The new motion contended: “The Court’s decision and, in particular, its assessment of the ‘national consensus with respect to the death penalty for child rapists’, was not informed by those recent pronouncements [of Congress and the President].”
Under the Court’s rules, a rehearing of a decided case can come about only if one of the Justices who voted with the majority supports rehearing, and there are five votes to do so. And, under the rules, the Court almost never will grant a new review of a decided case without first asking for a reaction from the other side — here, the lawyers for Patrick Kennedy, the Louisiana inmate involved.
Read the rest of this entry »
Email this • Share on Facebook • Share on LinkedIn • Digg This!
The Justice Department, in a bold legal maneuver, on Monday afternoon asked the Supreme Court to rehear a major case on the death penalty, saying the basis of the decision had been “undermined.” The decision at issue was the 5-4 ruling on June 25 in Kennedy v. Louisiana (07-343), barring the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. The federal government was not involved in that case. Although the Court’s rules do not allow non-parties to ask that a case be reheard, the Solicitor General’s office filed a motion asking permission to do so, arguing that the Court should grant the state of Louisiana’s plea for rehearing. The motion can be found here.
“The United States,” Acting Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre argued in the motion, “has a substantial interest in rehearing because the Court’s decision casts grave doubt on the validity of a recent Act of Congress and Executive Order of the President authorizing capital punishment for child rapists under the Uniform Code of Military Justice”– the law that governs crimes committed by those in military service.
The motion is based primarily upon the fact that the Court, in striking down Louisiana’s law on the death sentence for child rape, did not take account of a federal law authorizing that penalty in the military justice system. No one involved in the case had mentioned that law to the Court, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s opinion for the majority noted the supposed absence of a federal law on the subject in a survey of whether there was a “national consensus” for or against such punishment. The omission, discovered by a military law expert and mentioned on his blog, led Louisiana to ask formally that the case be reopened to consider the military law provision.
The Solicitor General’s office reacted earlier to the omission by saying that, if rehearing were sought, it would “consider what steps are appropriate.” On Monday, the answer came, one week after Louisiana asked for a new review.
The new motion contended: “The Court’s decision and, in particular, its assessment of the ‘national consensus with respect to the death penalty for child rapists’, was not informed by those recent pronouncements [of Congress and the President].”
Under the Court’s rules, a rehearing of a decided case can come about only if one of the Justices who voted with the majority supports rehearing, and there are five votes to do so. And, under the rules, the Court almost never will grant a new review of a decided case without first asking for a reaction from the other side — here, the lawyers for Patrick Kennedy, the Louisiana inmate involved.
Read the rest of this entry »
SCOTUS - (relevant decisions)
D.C. -Decision
Dick Anthony Heller, the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the District of Columbia for its handgun ban, after oral arguments at the Supreme Court at Washington in March.
Court Rules Second Amendment Is Individual Right To Bear Arms
By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN, Staff Reporter of the Sun 1:27 pm EDT
For the first time in the nation's history, the Supreme Court recognized today that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep a gun at home for protection.
The court struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns as well as a provision requiring long guns to be stored with a trigger lock.
The 5-4 ruling will reshape the debate over gun control, which has long been heatedly debated in Congress. That the outcome was decided by a single justice will help thrust the issue of future Supreme Court appointments into the middle of the presidential race.
Senator McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, issued a statement calling the decision a "landmark victory," and praising the Supreme Court for recognizing that "gun ownership is a fundamental right - sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly."
Senator Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president and a former law professor, was more tepid, saying "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms."
Washington's handgun ban was considered the most restrictive in the nation, with Chicago's ban a close second. The next legal fight over handgun regulation may well focus on Chicago, the city which Mr. Obama calls home.
In his statement, Mr. Obama seemed to suggest that he supported that handgun ban there. Referring to gun regulation, he said: "I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."
Justice Scalia was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito. The dissenters were Justices Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens.
"The American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon," Justice Scalia wrote for the majority, in explaining why it was not enough for the Second Amendment to protect private ownership of rifles and shotguns, but not handguns.
The decision, while a symbolic victory for the tens of millions of Americans who own guns, gives few hints about whether any gun regulation beyond Washington's ban is unconstitutional.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Justice Scalia wrote. "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,"
Justice Scalia also seemed to express some ambivalence about encouraging gun ownership as a policy matter.
"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem," Justice Scalia wrote. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
In a dissent, Justice Stevens espoused a different view of the Second Amendment. He argued that its aim was not to "enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution," but to "protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia."
Justice Stevens voiced concern about the prospect that the decision would unsettle existing gun control laws.
"Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia," Justice Stevens wrote. "The Court's announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding."
He continued later, "I fear that the District's policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table."
For the first time in the nation's history, the Supreme Court recognized today that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep a gun at home for protection.
The court struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns as well as a provision requiring long guns to be stored with a trigger lock.
The 5-4 ruling will reshape the debate over gun control, which has long been heatedly debated in Congress. That the outcome was decided by a single justice will help thrust the issue of future Supreme Court appointments into the middle of the presidential race.
Senator McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, issued a statement calling the decision a "landmark victory," and praising the Supreme Court for recognizing that "gun ownership is a fundamental right - sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly."
Senator Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president and a former law professor, was more tepid, saying "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms."
Washington's handgun ban was considered the most restrictive in the nation, with Chicago's ban a close second. The next legal fight over handgun regulation may well focus on Chicago, the city which Mr. Obama calls home.
In his statement, Mr. Obama seemed to suggest that he supported that handgun ban there. Referring to gun regulation, he said: "I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."
Justice Scalia was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito. The dissenters were Justices Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens.
"The American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon," Justice Scalia wrote for the majority, in explaining why it was not enough for the Second Amendment to protect private ownership of rifles and shotguns, but not handguns.
The decision, while a symbolic victory for the tens of millions of Americans who own guns, gives few hints about whether any gun regulation beyond Washington's ban is unconstitutional.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Justice Scalia wrote. "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,"
Justice Scalia also seemed to express some ambivalence about encouraging gun ownership as a policy matter.
"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem," Justice Scalia wrote. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
In a dissent, Justice Stevens espoused a different view of the Second Amendment. He argued that its aim was not to "enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution," but to "protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia."
Justice Stevens voiced concern about the prospect that the decision would unsettle existing gun control laws.
"Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia," Justice Stevens wrote. "The Court's announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding."
He continued later, "I fear that the District's policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table."
Justice Foundation
Pasedena, Texas
Randy Sylvester leaves court Wednesday, June 25, with his court-appointed attorney, Jerome Godinich
Children burned & buried
June 25, 2008, 11:47PM-Dad implied youths killed accidentally, police say
Pasadena police contend the man gave a statement to Quanell X that implicated him
By DALE LEZON and PEGGY O'HARECopyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
The Pasadena father charged in the deaths of his two children, whose badly burned bodies were dumped near a railroad trestle, implied to an activist he had accidentally killed them.
Randy Terrell Sylvester implicated himself in the grisly crime by making a statement to Quanell X, Pasadena police said Tuesday.
"He implied he did by virtue of that statement," said Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett.
Sylvester was arraigned in a downtown Houston court Wednesday morning as state District Judge Jim Wallace ordered that he remain in custody without bail on capital murder charges.
Sylvester did not speak, hanging his head as a prosecutor read the probable-cause statement aloud in court.
The statement includes investigators' assertion that the body of 3-year-old Denim Sylvester was in a blue suitcase and the body of her 7-year-old brother, Randy Sylvester Jr., was in a wooden chest when they were burned.
Sylvester's alleged words to Quanell X, the activist who helped convince the father to lead police to the children's bodies early Saturday, belied his claims of innocence to a Houston Chronicle reporter.
"You know how it went down. It was an accident," Sylvester reportedly told Quanell X — a conversation the activist later repeated to police.
During a jailhouse interview with the Chronicle later, however, Sylvester said someone else killed his children because he owed money.
"I didn't do it," he said Sunday. "I told Quanell, I told the police, I told everybody that it was about the money. They (alleged killers) used it to get to my kids."
How the children died has not been determined. Forensic anthropologists, who specialize in skeletal remains, will try to help solve that mystery — an effort expected to take longer than usual because of the bodies' condition, said the Harris County Medical Examiner's Office.
The children vanished on Father's Day from the family's apartment complex at 4025 Burke in Pasadena. Their mother, Jerilynn St. Cyr, said she last saw them that afternoon as they played about 20 yards from her door.
'Looking and waiting'When St. Cyr called 911 that night to report the kids were gone, a police dispatcher asked why she waited hours to call for help, according to a recording released by Pasadena police Tuesday. "I've been looking for 'em," St. Cyr answered. "I've been walking around, looking and waiting."
After a nearly weeklong search, Sylvester led police early Saturday to the children's burned remains. They had been dumped in an isolated area near Texas 3 and Allendale in southeast Houston.
Quanell X has said the children were killed in their father's apartment — an apartment where Sylvester lived separately from St. Cyr, but located at the same complex.
The activist's attorney, Stan Schneider, said he advised Quanell X to no longer talk about any conversations he had with Sylvester or the police.
Sylvester has a long criminal history. Before he and St. Cyr moved to Houston from the New Orleans area about two years ago after Hurricane Katrina, Sylvester had nine arrests in Orleans Parish, according to the parish's Criminal Sheriff's Office.
No details were available, but the arrests include battery on a police officer and domestic violence in 2003, officials said.
Sylvester, on probation for a drug arrest in Harris County when his children vanished, also is accused of failing to abide by conditions imposed on him by a state court after he was granted deferred adjudication.
Yet the Harris County Community Supervisions and Corrections Department never filed a motion to revoke his probation until after he was arrested June 17 on traffic warrants and officially named a suspect in his children's disappearance, court records show.
Unable to revoke probationHarris County probation officials failed to bring Sylvester's alleged probation violations to the court's attention before his children vanished, said crime victims advocate Andy Kahan. Some of those violations occurred as far back as December, court records show.
"Whether the court would have taken any action, such as revocation, that's going to be a question that will haunt this community forever," Kahan said. "The court was never given that opportunity to make that discretionary call.
"That's something I think a lot of us will be pondering for the rest of our lives. Could it have made a difference? We'll never know."
Probation officials would not comment Tuesday, saying they cannot discuss the issue since a defendant's probation file can only be disclosed with the court's approval.
State District Judge Roger Bridgwater, who presides over the court that handled Sylvester's drug charge, did not return a call seeking comment.
But the judge's attorney said all the publicity surrounding the children's disappearance prompted his court to ask if Sylvester was complying with the terms of his probation.
"The judge has to rely on the probation department to bring things to his attention," said Kelly Smith, who serves as general counsel for Harris County's state district judges.
Court papers allege Sylvester violated probation by failing to present written verification of employment for five months, failing to attend a drug awareness program and not undergoing an evaluation of his educational skills.
Sylvester also failed to perform community service and was late in paying his supervision fees and a laboratory processing fee, court papers show. He also never paid a $100 fine imposed by the court.
Chronicle reporters Rosanna Ruiz and Ruth Rendon contributed to this report.
dale.lezon@chron.com
peggy.ohare@chron.com
By DALE LEZON and PEGGY O'HARECopyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
The Pasadena father charged in the deaths of his two children, whose badly burned bodies were dumped near a railroad trestle, implied to an activist he had accidentally killed them.
Randy Terrell Sylvester implicated himself in the grisly crime by making a statement to Quanell X, Pasadena police said Tuesday.
"He implied he did by virtue of that statement," said Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett.
Sylvester was arraigned in a downtown Houston court Wednesday morning as state District Judge Jim Wallace ordered that he remain in custody without bail on capital murder charges.
Sylvester did not speak, hanging his head as a prosecutor read the probable-cause statement aloud in court.
The statement includes investigators' assertion that the body of 3-year-old Denim Sylvester was in a blue suitcase and the body of her 7-year-old brother, Randy Sylvester Jr., was in a wooden chest when they were burned.
Sylvester's alleged words to Quanell X, the activist who helped convince the father to lead police to the children's bodies early Saturday, belied his claims of innocence to a Houston Chronicle reporter.
"You know how it went down. It was an accident," Sylvester reportedly told Quanell X — a conversation the activist later repeated to police.
During a jailhouse interview with the Chronicle later, however, Sylvester said someone else killed his children because he owed money.
"I didn't do it," he said Sunday. "I told Quanell, I told the police, I told everybody that it was about the money. They (alleged killers) used it to get to my kids."
How the children died has not been determined. Forensic anthropologists, who specialize in skeletal remains, will try to help solve that mystery — an effort expected to take longer than usual because of the bodies' condition, said the Harris County Medical Examiner's Office.
The children vanished on Father's Day from the family's apartment complex at 4025 Burke in Pasadena. Their mother, Jerilynn St. Cyr, said she last saw them that afternoon as they played about 20 yards from her door.
'Looking and waiting'When St. Cyr called 911 that night to report the kids were gone, a police dispatcher asked why she waited hours to call for help, according to a recording released by Pasadena police Tuesday. "I've been looking for 'em," St. Cyr answered. "I've been walking around, looking and waiting."
After a nearly weeklong search, Sylvester led police early Saturday to the children's burned remains. They had been dumped in an isolated area near Texas 3 and Allendale in southeast Houston.
Quanell X has said the children were killed in their father's apartment — an apartment where Sylvester lived separately from St. Cyr, but located at the same complex.
The activist's attorney, Stan Schneider, said he advised Quanell X to no longer talk about any conversations he had with Sylvester or the police.
Sylvester has a long criminal history. Before he and St. Cyr moved to Houston from the New Orleans area about two years ago after Hurricane Katrina, Sylvester had nine arrests in Orleans Parish, according to the parish's Criminal Sheriff's Office.
No details were available, but the arrests include battery on a police officer and domestic violence in 2003, officials said.
Sylvester, on probation for a drug arrest in Harris County when his children vanished, also is accused of failing to abide by conditions imposed on him by a state court after he was granted deferred adjudication.
Yet the Harris County Community Supervisions and Corrections Department never filed a motion to revoke his probation until after he was arrested June 17 on traffic warrants and officially named a suspect in his children's disappearance, court records show.
Unable to revoke probationHarris County probation officials failed to bring Sylvester's alleged probation violations to the court's attention before his children vanished, said crime victims advocate Andy Kahan. Some of those violations occurred as far back as December, court records show.
"Whether the court would have taken any action, such as revocation, that's going to be a question that will haunt this community forever," Kahan said. "The court was never given that opportunity to make that discretionary call.
"That's something I think a lot of us will be pondering for the rest of our lives. Could it have made a difference? We'll never know."
Probation officials would not comment Tuesday, saying they cannot discuss the issue since a defendant's probation file can only be disclosed with the court's approval.
State District Judge Roger Bridgwater, who presides over the court that handled Sylvester's drug charge, did not return a call seeking comment.
But the judge's attorney said all the publicity surrounding the children's disappearance prompted his court to ask if Sylvester was complying with the terms of his probation.
"The judge has to rely on the probation department to bring things to his attention," said Kelly Smith, who serves as general counsel for Harris County's state district judges.
Court papers allege Sylvester violated probation by failing to present written verification of employment for five months, failing to attend a drug awareness program and not undergoing an evaluation of his educational skills.
Sylvester also failed to perform community service and was late in paying his supervision fees and a laboratory processing fee, court papers show. He also never paid a $100 fine imposed by the court.
Chronicle reporters Rosanna Ruiz and Ruth Rendon contributed to this report.
dale.lezon@chron.com
peggy.ohare@chron.com
JFAL feed
Subscribe via email:Get new Posts
Blog Archive
-
►
2023
(1)
- ► 02/05 - 02/12 (1)
-
►
2021
(1)
- ► 10/10 - 10/17 (1)
-
►
2020
(1)
- ► 06/21 - 06/28 (1)
-
►
2019
(1)
- ► 02/17 - 02/24 (1)
-
►
2018
(1)
- ► 01/28 - 02/04 (1)
-
►
2017
(1)
- ► 07/16 - 07/23 (1)
-
►
2016
(1)
- ► 12/25 - 01/01 (1)
-
►
2015
(1)
- ► 11/29 - 12/06 (1)
-
►
2014
(1)
- ► 03/30 - 04/06 (1)
-
►
2012
(2)
- ► 11/11 - 11/18 (1)
- ► 01/22 - 01/29 (1)
-
►
2011
(1)
- ► 09/25 - 10/02 (1)
-
►
2010
(4)
- ► 10/31 - 11/07 (1)
- ► 07/04 - 07/11 (1)
- ► 04/04 - 04/11 (1)
- ► 02/07 - 02/14 (1)
-
►
2009
(4)
- ► 12/06 - 12/13 (1)
- ► 08/30 - 09/06 (1)
- ► 05/24 - 05/31 (1)
- ► 03/01 - 03/08 (1)
-
►
2008
(4)
- ► 12/28 - 01/04 (1)
- ► 06/01 - 06/08 (1)
- ► 03/09 - 03/16 (1)
- ► 01/13 - 01/20 (1)
-
►
2007
(16)
- ► 12/02 - 12/09 (1)
- ► 10/21 - 10/28 (1)
- ► 08/19 - 08/26 (1)
- ► 07/29 - 08/05 (1)
- ► 07/08 - 07/15 (1)
- ► 07/01 - 07/08 (1)
- ► 06/24 - 07/01 (1)
- ► 06/17 - 06/24 (1)
- ► 06/03 - 06/10 (1)
- ► 05/13 - 05/20 (1)
- ► 04/22 - 04/29 (1)
- ► 03/25 - 04/01 (1)
- ► 03/18 - 03/25 (1)
- ► 02/18 - 02/25 (1)
- ► 02/11 - 02/18 (1)
- ► 01/21 - 01/28 (1)
-
►
2006
(9)
- ► 11/26 - 12/03 (1)
- ► 04/30 - 05/07 (1)
- ► 03/05 - 03/12 (1)
- ► 02/19 - 02/26 (1)
- ► 02/05 - 02/12 (1)
- ► 01/29 - 02/05 (2)
- ► 01/22 - 01/29 (2)
-
▼
2005
(13)
- ► 12/25 - 01/01 (1)
- ► 11/13 - 11/20 (1)
- ► 09/25 - 10/02 (1)
- ► 08/28 - 09/04 (2)
- ► 07/31 - 08/07 (2)
- ► 07/03 - 07/10 (2)
- ► 06/12 - 06/19 (1)
About Me
- H. L. Rasman
- Southeast, United States
- Email:~la.justicefoundation@1lajustice.net -:::- We are a justice seeking consortium of ideas & methods, across a broad spectrum; including all aspects of thought and reason. https://paypal.me/IAM2025
June 2005
New Orleans, Louisiana
Get New Posts in your Inbox
Doudou Diene, a Sengalese lawyer and the United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur
UN investigator on racism
UN investigator on racism completes U.S. tour
By Saeed ShabazzStaff WriterUpdated Jun 25, 2008, 09:44 am
UNITED NATIONS (FinalCall.com) - Doudou Diene, a Sengalese lawyer and the United Nations Human Rights Council special rapporteur on racism, has completed a tour of eight American cities, where he gathered firsthand information on issues related to racial discrimination and xenophobia.
At a June 6 press conference in the UN Information Center in Washington, D.C., Mr. Diene talked with reporters about some preliminary findings of his three week tour. While citing some positive things such as the nomination of Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as the Democratic Party candidate for the presidency, Mr. Diene focused on U.S. shortcomings such as resegregation of minority communities. The expert on racism and special investigator cited racial bias in the criminal justice system and talked about how underfunding of public education plays a role in deepening racial inequality. Mr. Diene explained he is not a UN employee and that he would be reporting to the UN General Assembly in the spring of 2009, but that his findings would be shared with U.S. government officials.
“We definitely feel that this was an important and timely tour,” said Ajamu Baraka, executive director of the Atlanta-based U.S. Human Rights Network, a coalition of over 250 American social justice and human rights organizations.
Mr. Baraka told The Final Call the Diene tour was an “opportunity to expose the underbelly of White supremacy in the country.” The number one fight for people of color in the 21st century is the fight for human rights, Mr. Baraka said.
In March, his organization charged the Bush administration with failing to comply with its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, an international treaty that the United States signed.
The U.S. Human Rights Network report, known as a shadow report, was filed with the UN committee based in Geneva, Switzerland that monitors compliance with the treaty.
“Our analysis revealed that the Bush administration is utterly out of touch with the reality of racial discrimination in America. The special rapporteur’s tour was an opportunity for the UN to hear from other voices in the U.S. on the issues of racial oppression,” Mr. Baraka said.
Mr. Diene visited New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Miami, Puerto Rico and Washington, DC.
In Miami, Mr. Diene heard testimony from Sofian Abdelaziz Zakkout, director of the American Muslim Association of North America, who discussed issues related to immigration, racial profiling and discrimination against the dress of Muslim women.
Aesop Ameen, director of the association’s prison committee, talked about the difficulties Muslims experience in prison when trying to adhere to their faith, including challenges when trying to pray.
Muslim civil rights advocate Ahmed Bedier explained to Mr. Diene how “Islamaphobia” and “anti-Muslim rhetoric” from officials and pundits are contributing to hate crimes against Muslims across Florida.
Tonya Williams, a U.S. Human Rights Network coordinator, told The Final Call grassroots organizations that participated in the forum in New Orleans “were particularly elated with the opportunity to tell their stories.”
The special rapporteur was able to gain knowledge of the “broader implications” of Hurricane Katrina and how the Black populations of Alabama and Mississippi were affected, she said.
Damon Hewitt, an NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorney, said Mr. Diene also got a look into the workings of the prison system through testimony about conditions at the Louisiana State Prison at Angola, a former 18,000 acre slave plantation. Testimony delivered before the special rapporteur showed little has changed in the last several hundred years of the prison’s existence. Even Congress recently heard complaints about the prison’s practice of keeping some inmates in solitary confinement for decades, said advocates.
“We will continue to expose these issues, and we will continue to mobilize people around these issues,” Mr. Baraka told The Final Call.
UNITED NATIONS (FinalCall.com) - Doudou Diene, a Sengalese lawyer and the United Nations Human Rights Council special rapporteur on racism, has completed a tour of eight American cities, where he gathered firsthand information on issues related to racial discrimination and xenophobia.
At a June 6 press conference in the UN Information Center in Washington, D.C., Mr. Diene talked with reporters about some preliminary findings of his three week tour. While citing some positive things such as the nomination of Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as the Democratic Party candidate for the presidency, Mr. Diene focused on U.S. shortcomings such as resegregation of minority communities. The expert on racism and special investigator cited racial bias in the criminal justice system and talked about how underfunding of public education plays a role in deepening racial inequality. Mr. Diene explained he is not a UN employee and that he would be reporting to the UN General Assembly in the spring of 2009, but that his findings would be shared with U.S. government officials.
“We definitely feel that this was an important and timely tour,” said Ajamu Baraka, executive director of the Atlanta-based U.S. Human Rights Network, a coalition of over 250 American social justice and human rights organizations.
Mr. Baraka told The Final Call the Diene tour was an “opportunity to expose the underbelly of White supremacy in the country.” The number one fight for people of color in the 21st century is the fight for human rights, Mr. Baraka said.
In March, his organization charged the Bush administration with failing to comply with its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, an international treaty that the United States signed.
The U.S. Human Rights Network report, known as a shadow report, was filed with the UN committee based in Geneva, Switzerland that monitors compliance with the treaty.
“Our analysis revealed that the Bush administration is utterly out of touch with the reality of racial discrimination in America. The special rapporteur’s tour was an opportunity for the UN to hear from other voices in the U.S. on the issues of racial oppression,” Mr. Baraka said.
Mr. Diene visited New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Miami, Puerto Rico and Washington, DC.
In Miami, Mr. Diene heard testimony from Sofian Abdelaziz Zakkout, director of the American Muslim Association of North America, who discussed issues related to immigration, racial profiling and discrimination against the dress of Muslim women.
Aesop Ameen, director of the association’s prison committee, talked about the difficulties Muslims experience in prison when trying to adhere to their faith, including challenges when trying to pray.
Muslim civil rights advocate Ahmed Bedier explained to Mr. Diene how “Islamaphobia” and “anti-Muslim rhetoric” from officials and pundits are contributing to hate crimes against Muslims across Florida.
Tonya Williams, a U.S. Human Rights Network coordinator, told The Final Call grassroots organizations that participated in the forum in New Orleans “were particularly elated with the opportunity to tell their stories.”
The special rapporteur was able to gain knowledge of the “broader implications” of Hurricane Katrina and how the Black populations of Alabama and Mississippi were affected, she said.
Damon Hewitt, an NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorney, said Mr. Diene also got a look into the workings of the prison system through testimony about conditions at the Louisiana State Prison at Angola, a former 18,000 acre slave plantation. Testimony delivered before the special rapporteur showed little has changed in the last several hundred years of the prison’s existence. Even Congress recently heard complaints about the prison’s practice of keeping some inmates in solitary confinement for decades, said advocates.
“We will continue to expose these issues, and we will continue to mobilize people around these issues,” Mr. Baraka told The Final Call.
Racial Unrest-Rapist,murderer,pending charges & nooses
Rotary Club Meeting
May 20, 2008
Evangeline Parish District Attorney Brent Coreil was the special guest speaker at today’s (Tuesday’s) meeting of the Ville Platte Rotary Club.
Coreil told the rotary that the Ville Platte area has been targeted for protests and racial unrest.. He announced that a group of about fourteen people held a protest march against the Ville Platte Chief of Police and the police department. More than half of those in the march according to the District Attorney were from outside the parish including an attorney from the ACLU from New York City.
Coreil reported that an area TV station interviewed three people involved in the movement: a convicted murderer, the mother of a serial rapist and a third person that has two pending charges against him.
He also discussed the incident in Bayou Chicot last week where three nooses were hung on churches and a highway sign. Coreil said he has been in contact with the US Marshal’s office and pledged his office’s complete support in finding out who is responsible for the nooses. The District Attorney admired the patience and courage of the ministers of the churches involved. “Who ever is responsible for this in Bayou Chicot is either stupid or really mean. All of our resources are being used to find the responsible party or parties.” Coreil confirmed that the US Attorney was in Bayou Chicot at the churches in question last Sunday and the FBI has joined in the investigation. “The federal government does not want another Jena case on their hands.”
May 20, 2008
Evangeline Parish District Attorney Brent Coreil was the special guest speaker at today’s (Tuesday’s) meeting of the Ville Platte Rotary Club.
Coreil told the rotary that the Ville Platte area has been targeted for protests and racial unrest.. He announced that a group of about fourteen people held a protest march against the Ville Platte Chief of Police and the police department. More than half of those in the march according to the District Attorney were from outside the parish including an attorney from the ACLU from New York City.
Coreil reported that an area TV station interviewed three people involved in the movement: a convicted murderer, the mother of a serial rapist and a third person that has two pending charges against him.
He also discussed the incident in Bayou Chicot last week where three nooses were hung on churches and a highway sign. Coreil said he has been in contact with the US Marshal’s office and pledged his office’s complete support in finding out who is responsible for the nooses. The District Attorney admired the patience and courage of the ministers of the churches involved. “Who ever is responsible for this in Bayou Chicot is either stupid or really mean. All of our resources are being used to find the responsible party or parties.” Coreil confirmed that the US Attorney was in Bayou Chicot at the churches in question last Sunday and the FBI has joined in the investigation. “The federal government does not want another Jena case on their hands.”
High Jinks 2008
Senators vote for pay increase
Measure now goes to House for debate
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
By Ed Anderson
BATON ROUGE -- Senators took less than five minutes Tuesday to pass a pay raise for themselves and House members pegged at 30 percent of the pay of members of the U.S. Congress.
With no votes to spare, the Senate approved, 20-16, Senate Bill 672 by Sen. Ann Duplessis, D-New Orleans, sending it to the House for debate. House members cheered passage of the bill while watching the Senate proceedings on their desktop television monitors.
Duplessis told reporters after the vote that Gov. Bobby Jindal will not veto the measure, although he may allow her bill to become law without his signature. "He takes a position of no position and has agreed not to veto it," Duplessis said. "At a lunch today (Tuesday) he said he will not veto it. Those are the words from his mouth."
"I strongly disagree with this pay increase," Jindal said through spokeswoman Melissa Sellers. "They are a separate branch of government and must manage their own internal affairs." Sellers did not say whether Jindal would veto the bill if it passes. It would go into effect July 1 if passed.
As the bill heads to the House, it increases lawmakers' base pay from $16,800 a year to 30 percent of the annual salary of members of Congress, currently $169,000. That would mean the base pay of Louisiana lawmakers would be about $50,700.
The president pro tem of the Senate, the House speaker pro tem, the chairmen of the House Appropriations Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, and the chairmen of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Senate Committee on Revenue and Fiscal Affairs would be paid 35 percent of the salary of members of Congress, or about $59,150.
The presiding officers of the two chambers would get 45 percent of the salary of a member of Congress, about $76,150.
Tying the pay of state lawmakers to congressional pay, Duplessis said, would mean that lawmakers would never have to vote on a pay raise again because as congressional pay increases, state lawmakers' pay would go up.
Duplessis' bill also allows lawmakers to draw their $143-a-day expense allowance for legislative sessions and meetings out of sessions. The per diem rate is also tied to the federal rate, which can go up or down each October, the start of the federal government's fiscal year.
Initially the measure also increased the $6,000 annual allowance for "unvouchered expenses" to $12,000, but Duplessis amended the bill on the Senate floor to keep the limit at $6,000. She also amended out a provision that would have prohibited lawmakers from receiving a per diem for meetings between sessions.
"It has been 25 years since the pay was raised," Duplessis said. If the bill passes as it is, the Legislature would be in the top 10 in pay among state legislators.
Jindal administration officials threw lawmakers into a tizzy late Monday when they said the pay was too high and Jindal was going to veto it, after saying all along he would remain out of the pay debate, Duplessis said.
She said after conversations with the administration, the objections dissipated, said House Speaker Jim Tucker, R-Algiers, who met with Senate leaders and Jindal Chief of Staff Timmy Teepell late Monday.
Tucker said that Teepell told the group the governor would veto the bill, but Tucker said he reminded Teepell that he did not want to weigh in against the pay raise after telling lawmakers all along that the governor was neutral.
Tucker said he told Teepell that with several administration bills pending and three gubernatorial vetoes that could potentially be overridden by lawmakers, it was not the time to threaten lawmakers with a veto. "I told him the wheels would come off the train," Tucker said.
"I think they have a better understanding of that (separation of powers) now," Duplessis said.
"We can't comment on private conversations" or acknowledge the meeting took place, Sellers said.
. . . . . . .
Ed Anderson cane be reached at eanderson@timespicayune.com or (225) 342-5810
Measure now goes to House for debate
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
By Ed Anderson
BATON ROUGE -- Senators took less than five minutes Tuesday to pass a pay raise for themselves and House members pegged at 30 percent of the pay of members of the U.S. Congress.
With no votes to spare, the Senate approved, 20-16, Senate Bill 672 by Sen. Ann Duplessis, D-New Orleans, sending it to the House for debate. House members cheered passage of the bill while watching the Senate proceedings on their desktop television monitors.
Duplessis told reporters after the vote that Gov. Bobby Jindal will not veto the measure, although he may allow her bill to become law without his signature. "He takes a position of no position and has agreed not to veto it," Duplessis said. "At a lunch today (Tuesday) he said he will not veto it. Those are the words from his mouth."
"I strongly disagree with this pay increase," Jindal said through spokeswoman Melissa Sellers. "They are a separate branch of government and must manage their own internal affairs." Sellers did not say whether Jindal would veto the bill if it passes. It would go into effect July 1 if passed.
As the bill heads to the House, it increases lawmakers' base pay from $16,800 a year to 30 percent of the annual salary of members of Congress, currently $169,000. That would mean the base pay of Louisiana lawmakers would be about $50,700.
The president pro tem of the Senate, the House speaker pro tem, the chairmen of the House Appropriations Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, and the chairmen of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Senate Committee on Revenue and Fiscal Affairs would be paid 35 percent of the salary of members of Congress, or about $59,150.
The presiding officers of the two chambers would get 45 percent of the salary of a member of Congress, about $76,150.
Tying the pay of state lawmakers to congressional pay, Duplessis said, would mean that lawmakers would never have to vote on a pay raise again because as congressional pay increases, state lawmakers' pay would go up.
Duplessis' bill also allows lawmakers to draw their $143-a-day expense allowance for legislative sessions and meetings out of sessions. The per diem rate is also tied to the federal rate, which can go up or down each October, the start of the federal government's fiscal year.
Initially the measure also increased the $6,000 annual allowance for "unvouchered expenses" to $12,000, but Duplessis amended the bill on the Senate floor to keep the limit at $6,000. She also amended out a provision that would have prohibited lawmakers from receiving a per diem for meetings between sessions.
"It has been 25 years since the pay was raised," Duplessis said. If the bill passes as it is, the Legislature would be in the top 10 in pay among state legislators.
Jindal administration officials threw lawmakers into a tizzy late Monday when they said the pay was too high and Jindal was going to veto it, after saying all along he would remain out of the pay debate, Duplessis said.
She said after conversations with the administration, the objections dissipated, said House Speaker Jim Tucker, R-Algiers, who met with Senate leaders and Jindal Chief of Staff Timmy Teepell late Monday.
Tucker said that Teepell told the group the governor would veto the bill, but Tucker said he reminded Teepell that he did not want to weigh in against the pay raise after telling lawmakers all along that the governor was neutral.
Tucker said he told Teepell that with several administration bills pending and three gubernatorial vetoes that could potentially be overridden by lawmakers, it was not the time to threaten lawmakers with a veto. "I told him the wheels would come off the train," Tucker said.
"I think they have a better understanding of that (separation of powers) now," Duplessis said.
"We can't comment on private conversations" or acknowledge the meeting took place, Sellers said.
. . . . . . .
Ed Anderson cane be reached at eanderson@timespicayune.com or (225) 342-5810
Revamp Judicial Process
La.’s incarceration rate leads nation, federal study shows
By BILL LODGE
Advocate staff writer
Published: Jun 11, 2008 - Page: 1A - UPDATED: 12:05 a.m.
In Louisiana last year, 857 of every 100,000 residents were in prison — a rate that led the nation, federal records show.
Statistics released by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics are for the first half of 2007. Officials note Louisiana also led the nation, with 824 inmates per 100,000 residents, in a similar study completed in 2005.
At 723, Mississippi had the second-highest rate of imprisonment in early 2007.
The bureau’s report was released at a time when the nonprofit Pew Charitable Trusts concluded that taxpayers are losing bang from their bucks because of decisions by many states to imprison more offenders for longer periods. Pew researchers said such policies are draining money from other programs, such as education and health care.
“Prison costs are blowing holes in state budgets but barely making a dent in recidivism rates,” Pew researchers conclude in a report titled “One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008.”
Those costs to state budgets totaled more than $44 billion last year, according to Pew.
Cecile Guin, director of the Office of Social Service Research and Development at LSU, expressed frustration over the federal statistics and Pew’s findings.
“We cannot get our correctional policy to change in this state,” Guin said. “Over the last 10 years, violent crime has decreased, but incarceration continues to increase.”
Guin added: “Somewhere down the line, this state is going to have to choose between incarceration and education.”
Pew researchers note that Louisiana spends 46 cents on corrections for every dollar it spends on higher education.
“As state budgets shrink, the choices are becoming more and more painful,” said Adam Gelb, who directed the study that resulted in the Pew report. “We’re seeing cuts in education and health care and other pressing priorities.”
Across the nation, Pew researchers said, the annual cost of holding a younger prisoner ranges from $23,000 to about $35,000. Older prisoners, they said, cost about $70,000 a year because of medical and other problems.
“Some crimes are so heinous they warrant a lifetime behind bars,” the Pew report observes. “But states are spending more and more on inmates who are less and less of a threat to public safety.”
Russell Jones, the Jesse N. Stone Professor of Law at Southern University, said Louisiana’s pockets of poverty and lack of achievement in public education are contributing to the state’s prison population.
“We need to do a better job,” Jones said. “We’re at the bottom of education in terms of graduating students. But we’re at the top in terms of incarceration.
“It’s just basic common sense. I don’t believe we can continue to incarcerate people at this rate. We’re going to hit a tipping point,” Jones said.
William J. Sabol, the lead researcher on the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics study, would not offer recommendations to officials of Louisiana or any other states.
“That’s a legislative and judicial issue,” Sabol said.
He did note that many states may be pressed to fund the expansion of prison facilities.
Sabol said Louisiana’s prison facilities are operating at about 115 percent of capacity and that the average for other states is about 114 percent.
“They (state officials) are starting to feel some pressure from overcrowding,” he said.
Pew’s Gelb said parole and other non-prison correction techniques do not have to translate into higher crime rates.
“You can spend less money and have less crime,” Gelb said. He noted that Louisiana’s crime rates were similar to those of Arkansas and Maryland in 2005 — yet Louisiana’s incarceration rate was nearly double.
“More and more states are finding that they’re not getting their money’s worth in terms of public safety,” Gelb said.
At LSU, Guin said she neither believes in coddling violent offenders nor advocates easy treatment for others who seriously hurt society. But she said many legislators are reluctant to search for smarter ways to deal with convicted criminals because they fear they will appear weak to voters.
“It’s about like political suicide to say these things,” Guin said.
Louisiana may top the charts for its incarceration rate, but Pew researchers reported plenty of other states work hard to fill their prisons.
“The United States incarcerates more people (2.3 million) than any country in the world, including the far more populous nation of China (1.5 million),” according to the report by Pew, which has its principal offices in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.
Those figures include local jail populations as well as state and federal prison inmates, Pew researchers said. Those figures mean that 750 of every 100,000 adult Americans are incarcerated.
Russia’s rate is 628, according to Pew. The rate for England and Wales is 148. In France, it’s 85.
By BILL LODGE
Advocate staff writer
Published: Jun 11, 2008 - Page: 1A - UPDATED: 12:05 a.m.
In Louisiana last year, 857 of every 100,000 residents were in prison — a rate that led the nation, federal records show.
Statistics released by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics are for the first half of 2007. Officials note Louisiana also led the nation, with 824 inmates per 100,000 residents, in a similar study completed in 2005.
At 723, Mississippi had the second-highest rate of imprisonment in early 2007.
The bureau’s report was released at a time when the nonprofit Pew Charitable Trusts concluded that taxpayers are losing bang from their bucks because of decisions by many states to imprison more offenders for longer periods. Pew researchers said such policies are draining money from other programs, such as education and health care.
“Prison costs are blowing holes in state budgets but barely making a dent in recidivism rates,” Pew researchers conclude in a report titled “One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008.”
Those costs to state budgets totaled more than $44 billion last year, according to Pew.
Cecile Guin, director of the Office of Social Service Research and Development at LSU, expressed frustration over the federal statistics and Pew’s findings.
“We cannot get our correctional policy to change in this state,” Guin said. “Over the last 10 years, violent crime has decreased, but incarceration continues to increase.”
Guin added: “Somewhere down the line, this state is going to have to choose between incarceration and education.”
Pew researchers note that Louisiana spends 46 cents on corrections for every dollar it spends on higher education.
“As state budgets shrink, the choices are becoming more and more painful,” said Adam Gelb, who directed the study that resulted in the Pew report. “We’re seeing cuts in education and health care and other pressing priorities.”
Across the nation, Pew researchers said, the annual cost of holding a younger prisoner ranges from $23,000 to about $35,000. Older prisoners, they said, cost about $70,000 a year because of medical and other problems.
“Some crimes are so heinous they warrant a lifetime behind bars,” the Pew report observes. “But states are spending more and more on inmates who are less and less of a threat to public safety.”
Russell Jones, the Jesse N. Stone Professor of Law at Southern University, said Louisiana’s pockets of poverty and lack of achievement in public education are contributing to the state’s prison population.
“We need to do a better job,” Jones said. “We’re at the bottom of education in terms of graduating students. But we’re at the top in terms of incarceration.
“It’s just basic common sense. I don’t believe we can continue to incarcerate people at this rate. We’re going to hit a tipping point,” Jones said.
William J. Sabol, the lead researcher on the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics study, would not offer recommendations to officials of Louisiana or any other states.
“That’s a legislative and judicial issue,” Sabol said.
He did note that many states may be pressed to fund the expansion of prison facilities.
Sabol said Louisiana’s prison facilities are operating at about 115 percent of capacity and that the average for other states is about 114 percent.
“They (state officials) are starting to feel some pressure from overcrowding,” he said.
Pew’s Gelb said parole and other non-prison correction techniques do not have to translate into higher crime rates.
“You can spend less money and have less crime,” Gelb said. He noted that Louisiana’s crime rates were similar to those of Arkansas and Maryland in 2005 — yet Louisiana’s incarceration rate was nearly double.
“More and more states are finding that they’re not getting their money’s worth in terms of public safety,” Gelb said.
At LSU, Guin said she neither believes in coddling violent offenders nor advocates easy treatment for others who seriously hurt society. But she said many legislators are reluctant to search for smarter ways to deal with convicted criminals because they fear they will appear weak to voters.
“It’s about like political suicide to say these things,” Guin said.
Louisiana may top the charts for its incarceration rate, but Pew researchers reported plenty of other states work hard to fill their prisons.
“The United States incarcerates more people (2.3 million) than any country in the world, including the far more populous nation of China (1.5 million),” according to the report by Pew, which has its principal offices in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.
Those figures include local jail populations as well as state and federal prison inmates, Pew researchers said. Those figures mean that 750 of every 100,000 adult Americans are incarcerated.
Russia’s rate is 628, according to Pew. The rate for England and Wales is 148. In France, it’s 85.
No Deals
Court rules ‘bowlegged rapist’ not immune
By KORAN ADDO
Advocate staff writer
Published: Jun 11, 2008 - Page: 5B - UPDATED: 12:05 a.m.
In 1988, when a Baton Rouge man known as the “bowlegged rapist” agreed to a plea deal that included a 20-year prison term, he thought the deal would grant him immunity from prosecution for all rapes he was suspected of committing.
But an appellate court has ruled that Phelix Parker, 59, can be prosecuted in a 1986 aggravated rape case.
The 1st Circuit ruling says Parker was not protected under the 1988 plea agreement because he was not a suspect in the 1986 rape case at the time he agreed to the plea deal.
The Friday ruling by the 1st Circuit overturns a December 2006 decision by state District Judge Chip Moore who said Parker should not be prosecuted on the 1986 case.
Parker served 10 years of the 20-year sentence in the plea deal and was paroled in 1998. Following his release, Parker worked as a carpet installer.
In 2005, a State Police investigator, who was working a rape case that had gone cold for nearly two decades, matched Parker’s DNA to a 1986 attack on a 19-year-old woman at a Baton Rouge Laundromat, according to Parker’s 2005 arrest warrant.
In that attack, police said the woman was raped at Ward’s Laundromat on Plank Road by a man who held a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her if she did not cooperate.
Parker was arrested later that year.
After Parker’s 2005 arrest, his attorney Kevin Monahan argued that the 1988 plea deal protected Parker from prosecution for any rapes committed before the plea deal.
Prosecutor Sue Bernie countered that the deal only covered those cases involving the women who attended a 1987 lineup in Parish Prison.
Those 15 women reported they were victims of sex crimes between February and July 1987.
After the lineup in which some of the women identified Parker as their attacker, Parker was booked on multiple sex crimes.
The plea deal required Parker to plead guilty to two counts of aggravated rape and one count of forcible rape.
Bernie on Monday said she welcomed the chance to prosecute Parker again and possibly provide the victim some measure of relief.
“DNA is a wonderful scientific tool and because of the strides made with technology, a lot of victims are being able to have some closure,” Bernie said.
Monahan did not return a phone call Tuesday for comment on the 1st Circuit ruling.
No new trial date has yet been set.
By KORAN ADDO
Advocate staff writer
Published: Jun 11, 2008 - Page: 5B - UPDATED: 12:05 a.m.
In 1988, when a Baton Rouge man known as the “bowlegged rapist” agreed to a plea deal that included a 20-year prison term, he thought the deal would grant him immunity from prosecution for all rapes he was suspected of committing.
But an appellate court has ruled that Phelix Parker, 59, can be prosecuted in a 1986 aggravated rape case.
The 1st Circuit ruling says Parker was not protected under the 1988 plea agreement because he was not a suspect in the 1986 rape case at the time he agreed to the plea deal.
The Friday ruling by the 1st Circuit overturns a December 2006 decision by state District Judge Chip Moore who said Parker should not be prosecuted on the 1986 case.
Parker served 10 years of the 20-year sentence in the plea deal and was paroled in 1998. Following his release, Parker worked as a carpet installer.
In 2005, a State Police investigator, who was working a rape case that had gone cold for nearly two decades, matched Parker’s DNA to a 1986 attack on a 19-year-old woman at a Baton Rouge Laundromat, according to Parker’s 2005 arrest warrant.
In that attack, police said the woman was raped at Ward’s Laundromat on Plank Road by a man who held a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her if she did not cooperate.
Parker was arrested later that year.
After Parker’s 2005 arrest, his attorney Kevin Monahan argued that the 1988 plea deal protected Parker from prosecution for any rapes committed before the plea deal.
Prosecutor Sue Bernie countered that the deal only covered those cases involving the women who attended a 1987 lineup in Parish Prison.
Those 15 women reported they were victims of sex crimes between February and July 1987.
After the lineup in which some of the women identified Parker as their attacker, Parker was booked on multiple sex crimes.
The plea deal required Parker to plead guilty to two counts of aggravated rape and one count of forcible rape.
Bernie on Monday said she welcomed the chance to prosecute Parker again and possibly provide the victim some measure of relief.
“DNA is a wonderful scientific tool and because of the strides made with technology, a lot of victims are being able to have some closure,” Bernie said.
Monahan did not return a phone call Tuesday for comment on the 1st Circuit ruling.
No new trial date has yet been set.
Vitter & the U.N.
Vitter turns up volume in his criticism of United Nations
By GERARD SHIELDS
Advocate Washington bureau
Published: Jun 10, 2008 - Page: 1A - UPDATED: 12:30 a.m.
WASHINGTON — Almost everyone has heard the story of David and Goliath, but how about David against the world?
Since his election to the Senate in 2004, U.S. Sen. David Vitter has emerged as one of the fiercest critics of the United Nations, the international body created 60 years ago to foster world cooperation. In floor statements and news releases over the last year, the Louisiana Republican has called the agency arrogant and dysfunctional.
He has taken particular exception to the United Nations involving itself in New Orleans affairs ranging from housing to race relations, asserting that the agency is interfering in matters in which it has no jurisdiction.
One of his biggest beefs is that the organization admits nations such as Cuba, Libya and China into its world policy-making panels.
“The United Nations is a regular forum for anti-American actions,” Vitter said. “There are a lot of states that are clearly not democracies.”
Conservative Republicans have traditionally opposed the United Nations. But Vitter has been particularly active in carrying the mantle, even using his opposition to raise campaign funds.
Supporters of the United Nations contend that Vitter’s positions show that he doesn’t want the United States to have to play by the same rules as all other countries.
“Senator Vitter is running around with the ‘America Right or Wrong Crowd’ … who have brought us such great hits as the current quagmire in Iraq, while at the same time, damaging our beloved country’s image around the world,” said Howard Salter, a spokesman for Citizens for Global Solutions, a nonpartisan foreign policy advocacy group.
U.N. officials could not be reached to comment on the Vitter objections. A list of questions sent to the organization two weeks ago went unanswered.
The matter that Vitter has been most vociferous about is the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. The agency’s attempt is to create a body and a court to govern the seas, which make up two-thirds of the globe.
The rules would cover military maneuvers, environmental impacts and the management of natural resources, such as fish. But Vitter said that the pact is harmful to the United States, which would have to cede too much control over those issues.
“It’s sapping U.S. sovereignty and moving it to a forum that is against the United States,” Vitter said.
Vitter has gained some support in his crusade. Voting 81-10, the Senate passed an amendment in September that would have prevented any United States funding from going to organizations, such as the United Nations, that would pursue international gun control policies. Though the provision was later stripped out of the legislation, Vitter said it sent a message to the agency that the United States would not allow the United Nations to infringe on the country’s Second Amendment rights.
Vitter’s most recent objection came from an announcement that the United Nations intended to send an envoy to several United States cities, including New Orleans, to investigate instances of racial intolerance. Vitter called the action an “insult” to America.
“I am constantly amazed at the arrogance that the U.N. tends to display on a frequent basis, and this is certainly not the first time they have attempted to exert their influence on New Orleans,” Vitter said in a news release.
The U.N. Human Rights Council’s housing representative expressed concern that tearing down New Orleans housing projects would displace the poor and lead to a rise in homelessness.
Vitter supports the housing plan, which was also backed by the Housing Authority of New Orleans, he said.
“I find it absurd — not to mention wasteful and clearly motivated by politics — that our nation has drawn the ire of the Human Rights Council, an organization that includes representatives from several countries that display a strong proclivity toward human rights abuses,” Vitter said in a statement.
But Michael Kraig of The Stanley Foundation, a nonpartisan Iowa group that focuses on peace and security issues, said there is a big difference between the problematic nations on the Human Rights Council and the U.N. Secretariat and agency staff who implement international standards in their daily work.
“We’re talking about universal principles,” Kraig said. “It’s completely legitimate for the U.N. agencies to apply the global principles they promote toward us.”
Vitter has used his United Nations opposition to raise campaign funds. Earlier this year, he sent letters that seemed to be created to look like official Senate stationery to supporters asking them to donate up to $2,000 to help him urgently defeat the law of the sea treaty (LOST), which is how Republicans refer to the proposed pact.
The treaty has yet to reach the Senate floor.
“That’s why in addition to helping me stop LOST from being ratified by the U.S. Senate in the coming weeks, if not days, I’m asking you to send a gift of $2,000, $1,000, $500, $250, $100, $50, $35 or even $20 today to help me spread the word to conservatives across America on the dangers LOST poses to our national security,” Vitter wrote in a fundraising letter.
Vitter sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is the ranking Republican on the subcommittee on international operations and organizations, democracy and human rights, which holds jurisdiction over United Nations issues.
Vitter plans to schedule a meeting with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. And he is also calling for a hearing on the Human Rights Council to address his concerns.
When asked about his reference to the sea treaty as LOST, Vitter said: “It’s just too good to pass up.”
By GERARD SHIELDS
Advocate Washington bureau
Published: Jun 10, 2008 - Page: 1A - UPDATED: 12:30 a.m.
WASHINGTON — Almost everyone has heard the story of David and Goliath, but how about David against the world?
Since his election to the Senate in 2004, U.S. Sen. David Vitter has emerged as one of the fiercest critics of the United Nations, the international body created 60 years ago to foster world cooperation. In floor statements and news releases over the last year, the Louisiana Republican has called the agency arrogant and dysfunctional.
He has taken particular exception to the United Nations involving itself in New Orleans affairs ranging from housing to race relations, asserting that the agency is interfering in matters in which it has no jurisdiction.
One of his biggest beefs is that the organization admits nations such as Cuba, Libya and China into its world policy-making panels.
“The United Nations is a regular forum for anti-American actions,” Vitter said. “There are a lot of states that are clearly not democracies.”
Conservative Republicans have traditionally opposed the United Nations. But Vitter has been particularly active in carrying the mantle, even using his opposition to raise campaign funds.
Supporters of the United Nations contend that Vitter’s positions show that he doesn’t want the United States to have to play by the same rules as all other countries.
“Senator Vitter is running around with the ‘America Right or Wrong Crowd’ … who have brought us such great hits as the current quagmire in Iraq, while at the same time, damaging our beloved country’s image around the world,” said Howard Salter, a spokesman for Citizens for Global Solutions, a nonpartisan foreign policy advocacy group.
U.N. officials could not be reached to comment on the Vitter objections. A list of questions sent to the organization two weeks ago went unanswered.
The matter that Vitter has been most vociferous about is the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. The agency’s attempt is to create a body and a court to govern the seas, which make up two-thirds of the globe.
The rules would cover military maneuvers, environmental impacts and the management of natural resources, such as fish. But Vitter said that the pact is harmful to the United States, which would have to cede too much control over those issues.
“It’s sapping U.S. sovereignty and moving it to a forum that is against the United States,” Vitter said.
Vitter has gained some support in his crusade. Voting 81-10, the Senate passed an amendment in September that would have prevented any United States funding from going to organizations, such as the United Nations, that would pursue international gun control policies. Though the provision was later stripped out of the legislation, Vitter said it sent a message to the agency that the United States would not allow the United Nations to infringe on the country’s Second Amendment rights.
Vitter’s most recent objection came from an announcement that the United Nations intended to send an envoy to several United States cities, including New Orleans, to investigate instances of racial intolerance. Vitter called the action an “insult” to America.
“I am constantly amazed at the arrogance that the U.N. tends to display on a frequent basis, and this is certainly not the first time they have attempted to exert their influence on New Orleans,” Vitter said in a news release.
The U.N. Human Rights Council’s housing representative expressed concern that tearing down New Orleans housing projects would displace the poor and lead to a rise in homelessness.
Vitter supports the housing plan, which was also backed by the Housing Authority of New Orleans, he said.
“I find it absurd — not to mention wasteful and clearly motivated by politics — that our nation has drawn the ire of the Human Rights Council, an organization that includes representatives from several countries that display a strong proclivity toward human rights abuses,” Vitter said in a statement.
But Michael Kraig of The Stanley Foundation, a nonpartisan Iowa group that focuses on peace and security issues, said there is a big difference between the problematic nations on the Human Rights Council and the U.N. Secretariat and agency staff who implement international standards in their daily work.
“We’re talking about universal principles,” Kraig said. “It’s completely legitimate for the U.N. agencies to apply the global principles they promote toward us.”
Vitter has used his United Nations opposition to raise campaign funds. Earlier this year, he sent letters that seemed to be created to look like official Senate stationery to supporters asking them to donate up to $2,000 to help him urgently defeat the law of the sea treaty (LOST), which is how Republicans refer to the proposed pact.
The treaty has yet to reach the Senate floor.
“That’s why in addition to helping me stop LOST from being ratified by the U.S. Senate in the coming weeks, if not days, I’m asking you to send a gift of $2,000, $1,000, $500, $250, $100, $50, $35 or even $20 today to help me spread the word to conservatives across America on the dangers LOST poses to our national security,” Vitter wrote in a fundraising letter.
Vitter sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is the ranking Republican on the subcommittee on international operations and organizations, democracy and human rights, which holds jurisdiction over United Nations issues.
Vitter plans to schedule a meeting with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. And he is also calling for a hearing on the Human Rights Council to address his concerns.
When asked about his reference to the sea treaty as LOST, Vitter said: “It’s just too good to pass up.”
Claiborne One - The Guardian Journal - April 2, 2009
Gun traced back to origin
State police wrapping up investigation
MICHELLE BATES, Editor
The handgun allegedly aimed at two Homer Police officers resulting in the death of an elderly Homer man has been traced back to its origin.
According to Louisiana State Police Troop G Spokesman Doug Pierrelee, the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) traced the handgun back to its place of origin. This does not mean the weapon has been traced back to its owner or any one specific person. It means just exactly what it is – its place of origin.
Bernard Monroe, Sr., 73, was shot and killed Friday, February 20 by a Homer police officer after he allegedly engaged two officers with a gun. Just before the shooting occurred, the two officers involved were pursuing his son, Sean Monroe, on foot, when that pursuit ended in the elder Monroe’s front yard.
Currently, investigators are assembling all the information gathered over the last several weeks, but they are waiting on completed reports from other agencies including the ATF.
“Our findings are our observations and collections, which include DNA testing from other professionals,” he said. “They include analysis by the ATF. This is the culmination of all these efforts that we submit. We don’t make a ruling. What we’re asked to do is to produce something that can be used to make a decision on this.”
The state police is wrapping up its investigation and has been working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), but the two agencies haven’t been working on the same aspects of the case. While state police investigators have been collecting physical evidence and piecing together what happened, the FBI is looking for any wrongdoing or any misuse of power.
“They’re (FBI) trying to investigate the potential of that happening (wrongdoing or misuse of power) in this case,” Pierrelee said. “Our concern is ‘What was happening when everything was going normal, to (the) pursuit, the tasering, a shooting, and what happened until we got there.’ That’s what people should expect when we turn this in. We’re only interested in those things that we can measure, those things that we can collect, identify and analyze.”
Steve Hall, agent in charge from the Shreveport Field Office, said their investigation is still ongoing, but they are making “good progress” in the case.
Once the facts are put together and the reports are written, state police findings will be submitted to the District Attorney of the Second Judicial District, Jonathan Stewart. It will then be up to Stewart to assemble a grand jury to decide whether there is enough evidence to carry the case to a trial.
“I will get their report, and I will review it, then make a determination on how to proceed,” Stewart said. “If I make a decision where further investigation is needed, then I will call together a grand jury, and I would not be able to make the report public until the (DA’s) investigation is over with.”
The function of a grand jury is to determine whether there is enough evidence to bring charges against a person. If they find that there is enough, they will file what is called a “true bill.” If they don’t, they will file a “no bill.”
According to law, there is a third option in Louisiana, “By pretermitting entirely the matter investigated.” This requires nine of the 12 grand jurors to determine there is not enough evidence presented to determine if a person should or should not be charged with a crime. This means they don’t know, and if that’s the case, it will be up to the district attorney himself whether to accept the grand jury’s findings or move forward with any charges.
Controversy has swarmed the small Town of Homer since Monroe’s death. Witnesses at the scene have said the elderly man did not have a gun in his possession at the time of the shooting. Tensions have run high, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has called the FBI, the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s office to investigate several aspects of the incident.
The U.S. Justice Department sent an assessment team from its Community Relations Service branch to Homer to help keep the peace in the community while the investigation is ongoing.
On Friday, March 13, a community forum, sponsored by the Justice Department, was held to allow the community to voice its grievances and say what they feel about the situation in general. Many voiced their contempt of the Homer Police Department, but many also voiced their desire for change in their community.
Most of those in attendance were from the Pearl Street and Buck Bottom areas of Homer, as well as Mayor David Newell, the town council and others.
What is The Justice Foundation
Justice Foundation is: The Justice Foundation of East Central Louisiana,
Louisiana Justice Foundation, The Louisiana Justice Group &
The Justice Foundation of America in Louisiana {JFAL}
mailto:US.1LaJustice@yahoo.com
Louisiana Justice Foundation, The Louisiana Justice Group &
The Justice Foundation of America in Louisiana {JFAL}
mailto:US.1LaJustice@yahoo.com
The Only Hope in The Final Times
A Sovereign Move!!
No comments:
Post a Comment