April 26, 2005
Black Girl Charged With Hate Crime
Via Michelle Malkin, I saw this story about a recent incident at Trinity International University where three students received “racially motivated hate mail.” When the third letter, which was the first to threaten violence, was brought to the attention of the administration, they called in the police and the FBI and evacuated minority students off campus.
Well, today the university released a statement.
The Bannockburn Police Department investigation of hate mail at Trinity International University has reached a successful conclusion. On Monday, task force members were able to obtain a confession from a Trinity student. The student is a female African-American who became disgruntled and wanted to leave the school. The notes became her way to leave the school by implying it was not a safe campus.
See, also, this story
There never was a serious threat at Trinity International University, police Lt. Ron Price said Tuesday.He said the woman, who was arrested and was expected to be charged on Tuesday, was unhappy at the Christian school and wanted to convince her parents it was too dangerous for her to stay.
"It's kind of a sad story, actually," Price said. Her name was not immediately released.
That’s right, she scared the shit out of lots of students and forced the university and the police and the FBI to waste money and time on an investigation because she didn’t want to deal with telling her parents something unpleasant.
People like this who make false accusations - whether they are of rape, molestation, or hatred - make me so angry. Whether it is for revenge, attention, or manipulation, they waste everyone’s time and make it so real incidents will be less likely to be believed.
The hate crime ones are especially heinous because they give credence to the belief that Americans are “really” racist bigots below the surface, when I think that the majority of Americans really aren’t racist anymore.
That’s why I was very glad to read this in the university’s statement.
The student is being charged with disorderly conduct and a hate crime per the Lake County State Attorneys office.
I hope this is not a misprint or misunderstanding on the part of the school. I don’t agree with hate crime legislation, but if it’s going to be around, I’m glad it’s going to be applied in this case. Threatening people simply because they are a particular race is no less heinous if you’re a member of that race yourself than if you're white.
More here where La Shawn decries the unfair application of hate crime laws, and also here, here, and here
Update: This story has the name of the girl, Alicia Hardin, 19, of Chicago. It also says she is charged with a hate crime.
Also, see this story, where you can see an example of, erm, "interesting" english from Jesse Jackson.
''It would have been the height of irresponsibility to have taken three threatening letters not seriously."
Posted by illuminaria at 12:55 PM | Comments (1)
April 07, 2005
Kansas Joins 17 States in Passing Marriage Amendment
From the AP
The ban reaffirms the state's long-standing policy of recognizing only marriages between one man and one woman. It also declares that only such unions are entitled to the "rights and incidents" of marriage, prohibiting the state from authorizing civil unions for gay couples.With final, unofficial results from 104 of the state's 105 counties on Tuesday, 414,235, or 70 percent, voted "yes," and 178,167, or 29 percent voted "no."
This is what happens when activists try to get laws changed through the courts instead of through the people. If you ask me, it would have been a much better strategy to go for civil unions first, then after that’s been accepted for a while, go for marriage. But they had to go for the whole banana first because, you know, obviously marriage with whomever you want is a right. Not changing the very nature of marriage from the way it’s been from the beginning of human history is totally a human rights violation.
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, agreed that the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately will determine the validity of state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.
I’m not a legal scholar or anything, but does the U.S. Supreme Court seriously get to decide the validity of state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage? Wouldn’t the only issue be if something in the U.S. constitution contradicted the state amendment? Given some decisions over the past 30 years, I suppose that wouldn’t necessarily be a surprise. I’d be interested in hearing from any legal folk who might have an opinion the likelihood of such a thing succeeding.
Of course, again, activists need to consider what the effect such a thing would have on the American public. Do they seriously think that they can force a redefinition of one of humanity’s most sacred institutions on us and expect no backlash? If the U.S. Supreme Court forces gay marriage on the U.S., I’m sure there would be a lot more support for a federal gay marriage amendment.
Foreman predicted the amendment will spawn lawsuits as gays, lesbians and unmarried heterosexuals encounter problems.
Interesting that they’re trying to bring unmarried heterosexuals into the debate. I doubt very many of them really care. After all, if they wanted to get married, they could.
"Does this impact living wills?" he asked. "Powers of attorney? Custody agreements? The enforcement of custody agreements?"
Since Kansas already has laws against gay marriage and civil unions, I doubt that it really affects them at all.
Personally, I’m a Christian and I’m morally against gay marriage. But I’m also an American and I respect the desire of people to not only live with who they want, but share certain legal privileges with whomever they wish. That’s why I’m for civil unions. However, I don’t think they should be limited to gays and/or based on sex. If someone wants to set up a civil union with their sibling, child, parent, next-door neighbor, or whoever, go ahead. It will make inheritance and custody issues simpler for them. I do think, though, that people should be limited to one marriage or civil union, (sorry polygamists) or else we’re setting up the legal system and health care institutions for big problems.
Posted by illuminaria at 11:48 AM | Comments (1)
March 21, 2005
Judge James Whittemore
I haven’t written anything on the Terri Schiavo case because so many others have been doing it so well; I haven’t felt I can add anything to the discussion. I do, however, feel that not enough evidence has been shown to prove that having her feeding tube removed is what she would have wanted, and in the case of starving someone to death, we should definitely err on the side of caution.
Many judges have made rulings on this case, but the only judge who has ruled on that particular question is Judge Greer. I’m glad that another judge will have the opportunity to rule on that. Part of the appeal of the judicial system is someone has the right to appeal any ruling, and this one shouldn’t be any different. While judges do their best to apply only judicial rules to the questions set before them, there is no question that bias can come into it.
U.S. District Judge James Whittemore is the judge who will be hearing this case now. He is a 1999 Clinton appointee. I’m interested to know more about him, especially since it has seemed that Judge Greer has shown so much bias and unwillingness to reconsider his opinions in the past. This article from a Florida news station has more on Judge Whittemore.
Longtime colleagues describe Whittemore, 52, as thoughtful, fair and down-to-earth, not the least flamboyant."He is a highly, highly regarded judge," said Tampa lawyer John Fitzgibbons. "He is highly intelligent and has just an excellent judicious temperament. He will allow all sides to state their position, to have their say."
Whittemore, appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton in 1999, is not known to display any political leanings.
Fitzgibbons said those who have criticized previous rulings in the case will not have an easy time accusing Whittemore of bias.
"He will call it as he sees it. You could not ask for a better or fairer referee," the lawyer said. "Everyone will be treated very fairly. It's almost a shame that there are not cameras allowed in federal courts. It would be such an incredibly fair proceeding it would be good for
the country to see."
I'm very glad to know that he is considered to be fair. According to the article, these are some of his best-known decisions:
One of Whittemore's biggest cases was the trial of elders from Greater Ministries, a Tampa church whose leaders were accused of bilking nearly $450 million from the faithful in a sophisticated Ponzi scheme.Whittemore also presided over the trial of Outlaws motorcycle gang leader James Lee "Frank" Wheeler and the prosecution of a group of corrupt Manatee County sheriff's deputies.
In the civil arena, Whittemore ruled against the unsuccessful 2001 bid by Cuban pitcher Rolando Viera to rewrite the rules of being a free agent.
In 2002, he sided with the Polk County School District's efforts to adopt a dress code that a group of parents had argued violated their rights to raise their children as they saw fit.
I'm following Wizbang for news and discussion. Tonight I will be looking around to see if I can find anymore interesting information on the Judge.
Updates in the "read more" section.
Here is Judge Whittemore's information sheet at the United States Courts website.
Here is an article in the St. Petersburg Times involves a case in which a whistleblower made an agreement with the federal government that she would not be prosecuted, then was “charged with making false statements, conspiracy and fraud.” Whittemore’s order said "Accordingly, I conclude that the government unilaterally breached that agreement."
Here is an article about the end of the Greater Ministries trial.
Betty Payne, 61, is in good health and appeared headed for judicial leniency until her words prompted the judge to add 16 months behind bars.Whittemore had just reduced her sentencing guideline based upon his finding that her role was minor compared to the other defendants. Then she read a statement, verbatim to what her husband read minutes earlier, claiming their constitutional rights were violated and their actions, all guided by the Holy Spirit, broke no laws.
The Paynes and their fellow defendants argued that a church program enjoyed First Amendment protections. Many of the program's followers harbor antigovernment beliefs and blame its collapse on government conspiracies.
``We are innocent of all charges,'' both Paynes said. The only difference in their statements came at the end. ``Glory be to God,'' she said. Smith later said he had tried to dissuade the Paynes from making such statements. ``They both feel that God will intercede,'' he said. ``And I told them both not to count on it.''
Attorney Anne Borghetti tried to minimize the harm, telling the judge that Betty Payne was under the control of other people: ``That's not her statement that she just read. She was given that by other people.'' ``That was my statement,'' her client insisted. Whittemore appeared surprised by the resistance.
``It's one thing to have blind faith,'' he told Betty Payne. ``It's quite another to cast yourself as a martyr for no apparent good. I just deliberated a matter that you could serve 33 months less. What you've just done is throw that right back in my face.''
...
The Bible also contains passages pertaining to people who abuse God's words, Whittemore told Gerald Payne. ``You're going to have time to study those passages.''
This article regards a suit brought by four white police officers claiming they got harsher punishments than a black officer for the same defense. Judge Whittemore dismissed the case saying, "The plaintiffs have failed to introduce evidence that racial discrimination, as opposed to some other race-neutral factor, including personal animus, was the controlling factor in the discipline decisions."
This story is about the conviction of three officers accused of planting drugs on innocent people. They were given the maximum sentence by Whittemore.
A blurb on this page (about halfway down) is about Judge Whittemore granting a request by the prosecution to exceed normal sentencing guidelines for a 48 year old HIV-positive man who had sex with a 15 year old girl he met in a chat room.
Another blurb is about the prosecution of two men who cut down a clearly visible eagle’s nest. Judge Whittemore fined one $10,000 and the other $90,000.
Update 2:: Some people have been saying that the fact that Judge Whittemore has not yet ordered on the injection yet, and said during the hearing, "I think you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that you have a substantial likelihood of the parents' lawsuit succeeding" is evidence that the judge already has his mind made up, and that there's no hope of success.
However, I will point out that the actual pertinant text of the bill recently passed is, "After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life." The usual precedent of an ordering an injunction also requires that the judge think the case being brought is likely to succeed.
Therefore, Judge Whittemore's comment is not out of line and does not necessarily indicate that he is hopelessly biased. Only time will tell.
Update 3: Judge Whittemore's decision can be found here. As expected, the rejection of the temporary restraining order was based on the failure of the plaintiffs to show that it is reasonably likely that they might win. Unfortunately the appeal was based on the question of whether or not Terri's due process rights have been violated in previous trials, not whether or not Judge Greer's decisions were correct or not. The chances of the next appeal succeeding are not very great.
Posted by illuminaria at 06:36 PM | Comments (12)