03/09/10 11:48
Filed in: Media Reform
UPDATED:Many news agencies lie and distort facts, not many have the guts to admit it...in court...positioning the First Amendment as their defense!
The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. We are pushing for a consumer protection solution that labels news content according to its adherence to ethical journalism standards that have been codified by the Society of Professional Journalists (Ethics: spj.org).
A News Quality Rating System and Content Labeling approach, follows a tradition of consumer protection product labeling, that is very familiar to Americans. The ratings are anti-censorship and can benefit consumers.
Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.
The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.
The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.
http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html
Monday, February 28, 2011
The Taliban and al-Qaeda: Not ideaological allies
Report exposes lie behind U.S. war and occupation in Afghanistan
February 28, 2011
The popular Afghan resistance is fighting to drive out foreign invaders.
The following was written anonymously by a March Forward! member who is an active-duty GI.
A new report published by New York University calls into question one of the central premises justifying the United States war on the people of Afghanistan.
The study is entitled Separating the Taliban from al-Qaeda: The Core of Success in Afghanistan and was produced by NYU’s Center on International Cooperation. Though it is generally supportive of the goals of the United States and NATO in Afghanistan, it reveals that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are not ideological allies, but rather have developed a pragmatic political alliance in the face of a common enemy – U.S.-led imperialism.
According to the study, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are “caught in a marriage of convenience” forced upon them by the U.S./NATO-led International Security Assistance Forces occupying Afghanistan. The two groups are sharply distinct and have radically different goals. They share neither ideology, social or cultural backgrounds, nor national origins. To date no Afghan nationals have ever been proven members of al-Qaeda. Even before September 11, 2001, there was “considerable friction between them … and today that friction persists.”
The study goes on to say that existent relationships between the Taliban and al-Qaeda come in three main varieties: “personal/ individual ties, a shared religion, and their circumstances, a shared location and enemy.” While al-Qaeda has provided some financial and training assistance to the Taliban, the organization has had absolutely no influence on the native Afghan resistance movements.
Matthew Hoh, a Former State Department official who resigned in protest of the way the war was being carried out, has said that possibly thousands of resistance groups in Afghanistan fight entirely independent from any affiliation, but are instead motivated solely by the common desire to remove foreign occupiers from their homes.
The Taliban’s leaders have repeatedly maintained that they have no interest in launching international attacks against the United States. Their goals, unlike al-Qaeda, are exclusively national in scope – they seek to drive out a colonial-type occupation by foreign invaders. Their actions have been entirely defensive and limited to Afghanistan’s national borders, unlike the United States, which invaded and occupied a country that has never committed a single act of aggression against it.
The NYU study additionally claims that the 2009 Obama administration troop surge is actually undermining the over-all U.S. strategy by alienating both the broader population of Afghans and the Taliban. U.S/NATO actions, particularly the increased frequency of night raids on Afghan homes, are further radicalizing the resistance and unifying opposition to the foreign occupation forces.
Furthermore, a public opinion poll taken last fall in Kandahar and Helmand provinces—the focus of the troop surge and the scene of the great majority of bloodshed in the country—found that only a miniscule 8 percent of young men even know about the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States.
Even the Taliban leadership did not know in advance about the September 11 attacks, according to the NYU study. Their statements immediately afterwards condemned the attacks while expressing disbelief that they were the work of bin Laden.
In fact, there is no evidence that the Taliban had a role in the 9/11 attacks. They even offered to extradite bin Laden to face trial, but in response were arrogantly told that the United States “will not negotiate with terrorists.”
NYU study shatters U.S. justification for war on Afghan people
Considering that the alleged pretext for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was in response to the Sept. 11 attacks, the findings in NYU’s study completely shatter the main justification for the war. The official justification for the U.S. military invading Afghanistan in 2001 was, in the words of then-President George W. Bush, to “smoke out” the enemy – al-Qaeda.
But if the Taliban does not share a common ideology or goals with al-Qaeda, had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and even offered to extradite bin Laden, what was the true reasoning behind the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan?
Another pretext for the invasion of Afghanistan was the Taliban’s reactionary social policies. As this propaganda line went, the United States invaded Afghanistan to save its women. There is no question that the Taliban regime had reactionary social policies. But that had not prevented the United States from organizing and funding reactionary extremist forces like the Mujahedeen when it was plotting to overthrow Afghanistan’s progressive and secular government. Social problems have only intensified since the U.S. invasion, and can never begin to be overcome as long as the Afghan people live under occupation.
The true motive behind the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was to maintain and expand its global hegemony and empire. Afghanistan is home to strategic natural gas and oil pipelines and is a critical crossroads to deal with the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, as well as Pakistan and Iran. Raising the stakes still further, in June of 2010 the United States discovered untapped mineral deposits worth upwards of a trillion dollars. Among those minerals is lithium, the metal used in cell phone and computer batteries, an enormous strategic prize.
However, it becomes clearer every day that, in spite of overwhelming military and technological superiority, the United States cannot win the war. Due to the valiant resistance of the people of Afghanistan, the United States has been forced to replace its goals of all-out domination with the avoidance of the appearance of defeat to stave off inspiring further resistance among other targets of the U.S. empire.
We have nothing to gain from this occupation. The Afghan people have the right to self-determination. The only solution to this quagmire that is in the interests of us, our families, and the vast majority of people in the U.S. and Afghanistan, is the complete and immediate withdrawal of all U.S. and NATO forces from the region.
http://www.answercoalition.org/march-forward/statements/the-taliban-and-al-qaeda-not.html
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Libya oil production to shut down completely-BofA
LONDON | Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:38pm EST
LONDON Feb 24 (Reuters) - Oil production in Libya is expected to shut down completely and could be lost for a prolonged period of time, Bank of America Merrill Lynch said on Thursday.
"We expect Libyan production to be shut down completely and we might lose sweet crudes from Libya for a prolonged period of time," Bank of America Merrill Lynch analyst Sabine Schels told Reuters.
Schels said that the world faced the prospect of real supply shock in which the loss of 1.6 million barrels per day of sweet oil could potentially trigger a steep rise in prices and force a sharp reduction in demand to balance the system.
"Some of the supply can be replaced with Saudi light crude and some from SPR, but if the disruption is prolonged, we will need demand to drop to balance the system," Schels said.
The bank is currently discussing scenarios and outlooks, and will publish a report on its findings in the coming days.
"We already faced a demand shock last year with global demand increasing by 2.8 million bpd and on top of that, what we have now is a real supply shock," Schels said.
"In a price shock scenario whereby we lose 1.6 million bpd, the rise in prices can be a lot greater than in the case of a demand shock. (Reporting by Jessica Donati; editing by Marguerita Choy)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/libya-merrill-idUSLDE71N2I720110224
LONDON Feb 24 (Reuters) - Oil production in Libya is expected to shut down completely and could be lost for a prolonged period of time, Bank of America Merrill Lynch said on Thursday.
"We expect Libyan production to be shut down completely and we might lose sweet crudes from Libya for a prolonged period of time," Bank of America Merrill Lynch analyst Sabine Schels told Reuters.
Schels said that the world faced the prospect of real supply shock in which the loss of 1.6 million barrels per day of sweet oil could potentially trigger a steep rise in prices and force a sharp reduction in demand to balance the system.
"Some of the supply can be replaced with Saudi light crude and some from SPR, but if the disruption is prolonged, we will need demand to drop to balance the system," Schels said.
The bank is currently discussing scenarios and outlooks, and will publish a report on its findings in the coming days.
"We already faced a demand shock last year with global demand increasing by 2.8 million bpd and on top of that, what we have now is a real supply shock," Schels said.
"In a price shock scenario whereby we lose 1.6 million bpd, the rise in prices can be a lot greater than in the case of a demand shock. (Reporting by Jessica Donati; editing by Marguerita Choy)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/libya-merrill-idUSLDE71N2I720110224
Friday, February 25, 2011
Wisconsin Radio Station Explains Why It Dropped Beck's "Unacceptable" Show
February 25, 2011 5:24 pm ET by Joe Strupp
The Madison, Wisconsin, radio station that dropped Glenn Beck's program this week issued the following statement to Media Matters when asked why the decision was made:
WTDY can no longer carry the Glenn Beck program. Over the last 12 months, the show has devolved into plugs for Fox News (the radio version of which is aired by our direct competitor), his books, and other personal endorsements. The lack of actual content becomes more apparent daily. Monday's program was the final straw; his unabashed deriding of Madison is unacceptable for broadcast in our community.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102250040
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Koch Brothers “Prank” No Laughing Matter
Published on Thursday, February 24, 2011 by PR Watch
by Mary Bottari
Embattled Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker came under fire today after news broke about statements he made in a 20-minute phone call from a Boston-area alternative news reporter posing as David Koch, a billionaire whose PAC directly supported Walker and who has given millions to groups that have run ads to aid Walker's rise to the state's highest office. (Listen to the call here.)
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/02/24-6
by Mary Bottari
Embattled Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker came under fire today after news broke about statements he made in a 20-minute phone call from a Boston-area alternative news reporter posing as David Koch, a billionaire whose PAC directly supported Walker and who has given millions to groups that have run ads to aid Walker's rise to the state's highest office. (Listen to the call here.)
As the Center for Media and Democracy has reported, the Koch PAC not only spent $43,000 directly on Walkers race, but Koch personally donated $1 million to the Republican Governor’s Association which spent $5 million in the state. Besides the Governor, Koch Brother’s has other “vested interests" in the state.
They include Koch Pipeline Company, which operates a pipeline system that crosses Wisconsin. It also owns Flint Hill Resources, which distributes refined fuel through pipelines and terminals in Junction City, Waupun, Madison and Milwaukee. Koch Industries also owns the C. Reiss Coal Company, a power plant company located in Green Bay, Manitowoc, Ashland and Sheboygan.
The Koch brothers opened a lobby shop in Wisconsin two days after Walker was elected, and many protesters have suspected that the “budget repair bill” provisions allowing the no-bid sell-off of any state-owned heating, cooling, or power plant, plus new rules on pipeline transport may be of interest to Koch. The company has denied any interest in these assets. Transcript Raises Legal and Ethical Concerns.
Pink Slips as Poker Chips Raises Legal Concerns
At the start of the conversation Walker eagerly reports on all he is doing: First, he tells the fake Koch brother about a plan to change Senate rules on pay to reel-in the out-of state Democratic senators who are holding out to protect collective bargaining. The new rule would force the Senators to pick up their paychecks in-person. This rule was passed in a partisan vote in the Senate yesterday--a move that went unnoticed by the mainstream press. The fake Koch asks Walker how they might get others in Senate to vote to stop collective bargaining. Walker responds that he's involved the Justice Department in investigating whether the union is paying the absent Democratic senators to remain out of state, or providing them with food, shelter, etc., saying it would be an ethics violation or potentially a felony. Wisconsin legislators are well aware of these rules and have already stated they are using their own money while they are out of state.
But the Governor also explains how he is going to layoff thousands of Wisconsin workers as a tactic to get the Democrats to cooperate: “So, we’re trying about four or five different angles. Each day we crank up a little bit more pressure. The other thing is I’ve got layoff notices ready, we put out the at-risk notices, we’ll announce Thursday, they’ll go out early next week and we’ll probably get five to six thousand state workers will get at-risk notices for layoffs. We might ratchet that up a little bit too.”
The move has been called “despicable” and “ruthless “ and “sickening.” But most importantly, if he is choosing to lay off workers as a political tactic when he wasn’t otherwise planning to do so then it is not just morally repugnant but legally questionable. State and federal contract and labor law has protections against this type of abusive behavior and inappropriate quid pro quo.
This morning the Capital Times quotes the state’s former Attorney General: “There clearly are potential ethics violations, and there are potential election-law violations and there are a lot of what look to me like labor-law violations,” said Peg Lautenschlager, a Democrat who served as Wisconsin’s Attorney General after serving for many years as a U.S. Attorney. The head of the state teacher's association, Mary Bell, reminds us: “he literally planned to use five to six thousand hardworking Wisconsin taxpayers as political pawns in his political game. He actually thought through a strategy to lay people off – deny them the ability to feed their families – and use it as leverage for his political goals."
Kids and Hired Thugs
Walker also says he considers then rejected the idea of hiring trouble makers to disrupt the rallies which have been packed with elementary school children and highs schoolers. When fake Koch says “We’ll back you any way we can. But what we were thinking about the crowd was, uh, was planting some troublemakers.” Walker says: “we thought about that," but he rejected the idea in case it back-fired. He didn’t want to “scare the public into thinking maybe the governor as to settle to avoid all these problems.”
Wisconsin Ethics Rules
Wisconsin has the toughest ethics law in the nation. Public officials are prohibited from soliciting or receiving anything of value if it could reasonably be expected to influence or reward official actions. The rules against “pay to play politics” say a public official is prohibited from taking official action in exchange for political contributions or anything else of value for the benefit of a candidate, political party, or any person making certain candidate-related communications. You can’t even take a cup of coffee from a lobbyist.
Earlier in the call, Walker had asked the fake Koch for help “spreading the word,” especially in the "swing districts," in defense of his determination to break the unions and help get calls in to shore up his Republican allies in the legislature. Walker benefited from a high-dollar "issue ad" campaigns by groups funded by Koch group before the election. Americans for Prosperity, which Koch chairs, promoted and funded a couple thousand counter-protestors last Saturday.
On the same day that the scandal broke here in Wisconsin, Americans for Prosperity went up with a $342,000 TV ad campaign in support of Walker – an enormous sum in a state like Wisconsin. If such ads are effectively coordinated with the Governor's office they may be subject to rules requiring greater disclosure of expenditures and contributors.
Toward the end of the call, the fake Koch offers to fly Walker out to California, after they "crush the bastards," and show him "a good time," to which Walker responds with enthusiasm in his voice "All right, that would be outstanding." But, Wisconsin rules bar state officials from taking action for something of value. After Walker agrees to the junket, the fake Koch adds, "And, you know, we have a little bit of a vested interest as well" to which Walker responds, "Well that's just it."
Conclusion
So, while Walker did not apparently not recognize Koch's voice, he certainly recognized his name, eagerly recounting his efforts to crush collective bargaining in Wisconsin to an out-of-state billioniare backer and thanking him for all Koch had done for him. The entire conversation raises ethical concerns that warrant much closer examination, especially with Wisconsin's tough pay to play rules. A week ago the Center for Media and Democracy filed an open records request for the Governor's phone records, email records, and other communications. Perhaps these records will help us understand all the influences behind the Governor's recent radical actions.
Wisconsin is not Illinois, it has a reputation for being a squeaky clean state and lesser scandals have brought down political officials. Governor Walker likes to complain of “outside agitators.” Hard to imagine an agitator with more influence and money than the Koch-family.
© 2011 Center for Media & Democracy
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/02/24-6
Oil soars close to $120 on Libya fears
By Agence France-Presse
Thursday, February 24th, 2011 -- 4:27 pm
LONDON – Oil prices rocketed close to $120 on Thursday, levels unseen since mid-2008, as growing instability in Libya stoked supply jitters across the Middle East and beyond.
Brent North Sea crude for delivery in April rallied as high as $119.79 per barrel, the highest since August 22, 2008. It breached $110 easily on Wednesday as Libya was gripped by a fresh wave of violence and other protests continued across the Middle East.
New York's light sweet crude for April, known as West Texas Intermediate (WTI), jumped to $103.41, a level last seen in late September 2008.
"Oil prices continued to surge higher as events in Libya dominate the headlines and the oil market," said Westhouse Securities analyst David Hart.
"The country's output of high-quality crude is being significantly impacted due to the exodus of foreign personnel."
The oil market has spiked higher this week as foreign energy companies have halted or cut output from Libya as a result of the violence.
Spain's biggest oil company, Repsol, stopped production there earlier this week as anti-government protests spread.
Italy's ENI, the biggest foreign energy major in Libya, said Thursday that it has cut oil production in the country by over 50 percent due to the ongoing unrest while British giant BP evacuated all expatriate staff from the restive country.
"Crude prices held up over the past week, underpinned by persistent geopolitical concerns amid ongoing tensions in the Middle East and North Africa," said VTB Capital commodities analyst Andrey Kruchenkov.
"Violence in Libya escalated with the country's Eastern provinces allegedly (escaping from) government control and reports of shutting down production capacity by oil majors."
In later afternoon deals on Thursday, Brent stood at $113.94, up $2.69 from Wednesday's closing level, while New York was $1.31 higher at $99.41 per barrel.
Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi spoke Thursday to the elders of a town west of the capital where he said a drug-crazed mob of youths spurred on by Al-Qaeda had killed four policemen, urging them to bring their children under control.
Speaking on state television by phone from an undisclosed location, the embattled 68-year-old former colonel fretted about unrest in Az-Zawiyah, 50 kilometres (30 miles) west of Tripoli as the battle to unseat him began to encircle the capital.
Al-Jazeera television reported heavy fighting there between pro- and anti-government forces and said there had been an undetermined number of casualties.
"Increasing unrest in North Africa and the Middle East has been a key driver of the latest spike (in prices)," said Shane Oliver, chief economist at AMP Capital Investors.
He said in a research note that Libya accounts for 1.8 million barrels a day of oil production, while Algeria, which has also seen protests, accounts for 2.1 million barrels.
Libya has Africa's largest oil reserves, is the continent's fourth largest producer and is a member of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the cartel that produces about 40 percent of global supplies.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/24/oil-soars-close-to-120-on-libya-fears/
Thursday, February 24th, 2011 -- 4:27 pm
LONDON – Oil prices rocketed close to $120 on Thursday, levels unseen since mid-2008, as growing instability in Libya stoked supply jitters across the Middle East and beyond.
Brent North Sea crude for delivery in April rallied as high as $119.79 per barrel, the highest since August 22, 2008. It breached $110 easily on Wednesday as Libya was gripped by a fresh wave of violence and other protests continued across the Middle East.
New York's light sweet crude for April, known as West Texas Intermediate (WTI), jumped to $103.41, a level last seen in late September 2008.
"Oil prices continued to surge higher as events in Libya dominate the headlines and the oil market," said Westhouse Securities analyst David Hart.
"The country's output of high-quality crude is being significantly impacted due to the exodus of foreign personnel."
The oil market has spiked higher this week as foreign energy companies have halted or cut output from Libya as a result of the violence.
Spain's biggest oil company, Repsol, stopped production there earlier this week as anti-government protests spread.
Italy's ENI, the biggest foreign energy major in Libya, said Thursday that it has cut oil production in the country by over 50 percent due to the ongoing unrest while British giant BP evacuated all expatriate staff from the restive country.
"Crude prices held up over the past week, underpinned by persistent geopolitical concerns amid ongoing tensions in the Middle East and North Africa," said VTB Capital commodities analyst Andrey Kruchenkov.
"Violence in Libya escalated with the country's Eastern provinces allegedly (escaping from) government control and reports of shutting down production capacity by oil majors."
In later afternoon deals on Thursday, Brent stood at $113.94, up $2.69 from Wednesday's closing level, while New York was $1.31 higher at $99.41 per barrel.
Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi spoke Thursday to the elders of a town west of the capital where he said a drug-crazed mob of youths spurred on by Al-Qaeda had killed four policemen, urging them to bring their children under control.
Speaking on state television by phone from an undisclosed location, the embattled 68-year-old former colonel fretted about unrest in Az-Zawiyah, 50 kilometres (30 miles) west of Tripoli as the battle to unseat him began to encircle the capital.
Al-Jazeera television reported heavy fighting there between pro- and anti-government forces and said there had been an undetermined number of casualties.
"Increasing unrest in North Africa and the Middle East has been a key driver of the latest spike (in prices)," said Shane Oliver, chief economist at AMP Capital Investors.
He said in a research note that Libya accounts for 1.8 million barrels a day of oil production, while Algeria, which has also seen protests, accounts for 2.1 million barrels.
Libya has Africa's largest oil reserves, is the continent's fourth largest producer and is a member of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the cartel that produces about 40 percent of global supplies.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/24/oil-soars-close-to-120-on-libya-fears/
‘Big Oil’ lobby to begin donating to political candidates
By Eric W. Dolan
Thursday, February 24th, 2011 -- 8:23 pm
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/24/big-oil-lobby-to-begin-donating-to-political-candidates/
Thursday, February 24th, 2011 -- 8:23 pm
The American Petroleum Institute (API), which represents more than 450 oil and natural gas companies, has announced it will start donating to political candidates this year as President Obama aims to cut subsidies to energy companies and expand environmental laws.
"This is adding one more tool to our toolkit," Martin Durbin, API’s executive vice president for government affairs, told Bloomberg in an interview. "At the end of the day, our mission is trying to influence the policy debate."
The API spent $6.7 million to lobby Congress and the White House last year, ThinkProgress reported, making it the seventh most prolific spender in the oil and gas industry, following ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Koch Industries and BP.
API President and CEO Jack Gerard sharply criticized President Obama proposal to cut billions in subsidies to energy companies, saying it would eliminate thousands of new jobs.
"It’s no surprise the administration is proposing yet again to raise taxes on the U.S. oil and natural gas industry," he said. "But it’s still a bad idea and comes at one of the worst times in our economic history."
In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama called for investments into clean energy, declaring they should be paid for in part by cutting federal subsidies and tax breaks for the oil industry.
Obama said the United States should get 80 percent of its electricity from clean energy sources by 2035, though he included nuclear power, "clean coal," and natural gas as part of that standard, in addition to wind and solar.
On Thursday, Richard Ranger, a senior policy adviser at API, called on President Obama to lift drilling restrictions on Alaska's outer continental shelf.
In July 2010, Greenpeace obtained an internal memo from the API that showed the institute funded and developed a fake grassroots campaign to attack environmental legislation.
"API will provide the up-front resources," the email said. "This includes contracting with a highly experienced events management company that has produced successful rallies for presidential campaigns."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/24/big-oil-lobby-to-begin-donating-to-political-candidates/
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes
Tue, Aug 12 2008
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.
The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.
During that time corporate sales in the United States totaled $2.5 trillion, according to Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who requested the GAO study.
The report did not name any companies. The GAO said corporations escaped paying federal income taxes for a variety of reasons including operating losses, tax credits and an ability to use transactions within the company to shift income to low tax countries.
With the U.S. budget deficit this year running close to the record $413 billion that was set in 2004 and projected to hit a record $486 billion next year, lawmakers are looking to plug holes in the U.S. tax code and generate more revenues.
Dorgan in a statement called the report "a shocking indictment of the current tax system." Levin said it made clear that "too many corporations are using tax trickery to send their profits overseas and avoid paying their fair share in the United States."
The study showed about 28 percent of large foreign corporations, those with more than $250 million in assets, doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes in 2005 despite $372 billion in gross receipts, the senators said. About 25 percent of the largest U.S. companies paid no federal income taxes in 2005 despite $1.1 trillion in gross sales that year, they said.
(Reporting by Donna Smith, Editing by David Wiessler)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.
The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.
During that time corporate sales in the United States totaled $2.5 trillion, according to Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who requested the GAO study.
The report did not name any companies. The GAO said corporations escaped paying federal income taxes for a variety of reasons including operating losses, tax credits and an ability to use transactions within the company to shift income to low tax countries.
With the U.S. budget deficit this year running close to the record $413 billion that was set in 2004 and projected to hit a record $486 billion next year, lawmakers are looking to plug holes in the U.S. tax code and generate more revenues.
Dorgan in a statement called the report "a shocking indictment of the current tax system." Levin said it made clear that "too many corporations are using tax trickery to send their profits overseas and avoid paying their fair share in the United States."
The study showed about 28 percent of large foreign corporations, those with more than $250 million in assets, doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes in 2005 despite $372 billion in gross receipts, the senators said. About 25 percent of the largest U.S. companies paid no federal income taxes in 2005 despite $1.1 trillion in gross sales that year, they said.
(Reporting by Donna Smith, Editing by David Wiessler)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Murdoch Reportedly Pays $77M To Settle "Alleged Tax Avoidance Scheme"
February 15, 2011 10:28 am ET by Sarah Pavlus
According to a report in The Sydney Morning Herald, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation -- the parent company of Fox News -- "has been forced to pay the [Australian Capital Territory] government $77 million in taxes and penalties after an alleged tax avoidance scheme unravelled."
The payment was reportedly "noted in the [Australian Capital Territory]
midyear budget update as duties on 'shares and marketable securities.'"
From the article:
The Rupert Murdoch media empire paid the money late last year in a secret settlement, two years after being taken to court by ACT tax authorities who demanded $84 million in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest.
[...]
A News Corporation spokesman said yesterday the case had been settled confidentially and declined to comment further.
The ACT government also made no comment, citing the territory's secretive tax laws.
But documents reveal how the commissioner for ACT revenue, Graeme Dowell, and his officials untangled a web of transactions between Murdoch-controlled companies in Victoria, Queensland and as far away as the North Atlantic tax haven of Bermuda.
The trail reaches back to 2004, when the territory claimed it was owed duty on the transfer of nearly $9 billion worth of shares in a former territory-registered Murdoch company, Karlholt, as part of the restructure of the media mogul's empire.
You can read more about it here and here.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102150010
The Freedom to Conduct Research, Write, and Share Ideas Without Fear of Violence is Fundamental to American Democracy
A Response to the Recent Attacks on Professor Frances Fox Piven
February 15, 2011
For many years, the academic community in the United States has stood firm in its support of scholars across the world who have been threatened or endangered by their scholarship, research, and writing. We must do the same for scholars in the United States.
We, the leadership of major scholarly associations, express our collective outrage at the recent, repeated attacks on Professor Frances Fox Piven. These attacks have been based on rhetoric, rather than substance, and have incited threats of violence, rather than encouraging open debate. Radio and television personality Glenn Beck has accused Professor Piven of creating a plan to “intentionally collapse our economic system,” as reported by The New York Times; and he has included her in a list of the nine “most dangerous people” in the world. While Mr. Beck has not directly called for violence against Professor Piven, his attacks have created a space for threats of violence to emerge. Over the past several months, Professor Piven has received a flood of hate mail and menacing internet postings, including death threats. The Center for Constitutional Rights has identified many violent posts by visitors to Mr. Beck’s website, including the following: “I am all for violence and change Frances: Where do your loved ones live?” The rhetoric has become sufficiently overheated that the potential for physical violence is real.
Dr. Piven, a Professor of Political Science and Sociology at the City University of New York Graduate Center who holds a PhD from the University of Chicago, is one of the nation’s most thoughtful commentators on the country’s social welfare system. She has been elected President of the American Sociological Association, Vice President of the American Political Science Association, and President of the Society for the Study of Social Problems.
We call on public officials, political commentators, and others in the media to help discourage the rhetoric of hate and violence that has escalated in recent months. We vigorously support serious, honest, and passionate public debate. We support serious engagement on the research of Professor Piven and of others who study controversial issues such as unemployment, the economic crisis, the rights of welfare recipients, and the place of government intervention. We also support the right of political commentators to participate in such debates. At the same time, we insist that all parties recognize the rights of academic researchers not only to gather and analyze evidence related to controversial questions, but also to arrive at their own conclusions and to expect those conclusions to be reported accurately in public debates.
Both scholars and commentators, regardless of political orientation, strive to serve the public good. We can only benefit from their work when all parties respect the rights of others to disagree without fear of violent reprisal. We call on all parties to condemn the recent escalation of violent rhetoric, which does nothing to serve democracy.
Signatories:
American Anthropological Association
American Association of Geographers
American Council of Learned Societies
American Educational Research Association
American Sociological Association
Association for Humanist Sociology
Board, American Society of Criminology
Board, Research Committee 19 (Poverty, Social Welfare, and Social Policy) of the International Sociological Association
Board, Society for the Study of Social Problems
Consortium of Social Science Associations
Eastern Sociological Society
Linguistic Society of America
Mid-South Sociological Association
Midwest Sociological Society
National Women’s Studies Association
Pacific Sociological Association
Planners of Color Interest Group, Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning
Rural Sociological Society
Social Science History Association
Social Science Research Council
Sociologists for Women in Society
Sociologists Without Borders
Southern Sociological Society
http://www.asanet.org/press/Freedom_to_Conduct_Research_Without_Fear_of_Violence.cfm
February 15, 2011
For many years, the academic community in the United States has stood firm in its support of scholars across the world who have been threatened or endangered by their scholarship, research, and writing. We must do the same for scholars in the United States.
We, the leadership of major scholarly associations, express our collective outrage at the recent, repeated attacks on Professor Frances Fox Piven. These attacks have been based on rhetoric, rather than substance, and have incited threats of violence, rather than encouraging open debate. Radio and television personality Glenn Beck has accused Professor Piven of creating a plan to “intentionally collapse our economic system,” as reported by The New York Times; and he has included her in a list of the nine “most dangerous people” in the world. While Mr. Beck has not directly called for violence against Professor Piven, his attacks have created a space for threats of violence to emerge. Over the past several months, Professor Piven has received a flood of hate mail and menacing internet postings, including death threats. The Center for Constitutional Rights has identified many violent posts by visitors to Mr. Beck’s website, including the following: “I am all for violence and change Frances: Where do your loved ones live?” The rhetoric has become sufficiently overheated that the potential for physical violence is real.
Dr. Piven, a Professor of Political Science and Sociology at the City University of New York Graduate Center who holds a PhD from the University of Chicago, is one of the nation’s most thoughtful commentators on the country’s social welfare system. She has been elected President of the American Sociological Association, Vice President of the American Political Science Association, and President of the Society for the Study of Social Problems.
We call on public officials, political commentators, and others in the media to help discourage the rhetoric of hate and violence that has escalated in recent months. We vigorously support serious, honest, and passionate public debate. We support serious engagement on the research of Professor Piven and of others who study controversial issues such as unemployment, the economic crisis, the rights of welfare recipients, and the place of government intervention. We also support the right of political commentators to participate in such debates. At the same time, we insist that all parties recognize the rights of academic researchers not only to gather and analyze evidence related to controversial questions, but also to arrive at their own conclusions and to expect those conclusions to be reported accurately in public debates.
Both scholars and commentators, regardless of political orientation, strive to serve the public good. We can only benefit from their work when all parties respect the rights of others to disagree without fear of violent reprisal. We call on all parties to condemn the recent escalation of violent rhetoric, which does nothing to serve democracy.
Signatories:
American Anthropological Association
American Association of Geographers
American Council of Learned Societies
American Educational Research Association
American Sociological Association
Association for Humanist Sociology
Board, American Society of Criminology
Board, Research Committee 19 (Poverty, Social Welfare, and Social Policy) of the International Sociological Association
Board, Society for the Study of Social Problems
Consortium of Social Science Associations
Eastern Sociological Society
Linguistic Society of America
Mid-South Sociological Association
Midwest Sociological Society
National Women’s Studies Association
Pacific Sociological Association
Planners of Color Interest Group, Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning
Rural Sociological Society
Social Science History Association
Social Science Research Council
Sociologists for Women in Society
Sociologists Without Borders
Southern Sociological Society
http://www.asanet.org/press/Freedom_to_Conduct_Research_Without_Fear_of_Violence.cfm
Boehlert On Hardball: Glenn Beck "Is Just An Absolute True Conspiracist" -- "He's Selling Paranoia," "Fear"
February 14, 2011 6:18 pm ET
From the February 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
From the February 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
Dick Wadhams drops out of state GOP chairman’s race
Posted February 7, 2011, 6:28 pm MT
UPDATE: Ryan Call, the state’s legal counsel said he is “strongly considering” running for chairman.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2011/02/07/dick-wadhams-drops-out-of-state-gop-chairmans-race/22599/
UPDATE: Ryan Call, the state’s legal counsel said he is “strongly considering” running for chairman.
Dick Wadhams
Dick Wadhams today unexpectedly dropped his bid for a third term as chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, and said he has no idea what he will do next.
Wadhams said he had the votes but in the last few days got to thinking, “What happens after I win?”
“I have loved being chairman, but I’m tired of the nuts who have no grasp of what the state party’s role is,” he said.
Wadhams last year was alternately accused of meddling in the governor’s race and not interceding in order to make sure the right Republican won. Democrat John Hickenlooper ultimately won the race despite 2010 being a Republican year.
His departure from the race leaves state Sen. Ted Harvey as the strongest contender in the race, although a number of Republicans expect more candidates to run now that Wadhams is out. Among those mentioned: Ryan Call, legal counsel for the GOP.
“I am strongly considering it,” Call said. “Our party needs good leadership and someone who can build consensus.”
Here is the memo Wadham sent this afternoon to members of the Colorado Republican State Central Committee:
It has been an honor and privilege to serve as Colorado Republican Chairman but after much reflection I have decided to not seek reelection.
I am very grateful to a clear majority of the members of the Colorado Republican State Central Committee who offered their support and encouragement over the past several weeks.
I entered this race a few weeks ago looking forward to discussing what we accomplished in 2010 and to the opportunities we have in 2012 to elect a new Republican president; to increase our state House majority and win a state Senate majority; and to reelect our two new members of Congress.
However, I have tired of those who are obsessed with seeing conspiracies around every corner and who have terribly misguided notions of what the role of the state party is while saying “uniting conservatives” is all that is needed to win competitive races across the state.
I have no delusions this will recede after the state central committee meeting in March. Meanwhile, the ability of Colorado Republicans to win and retain the votes of hundreds of thousands of unaffiliated swing voters in 2012 will be severely undermined.
For the past four years, I have devoted all of my professional time and energy to serving as state chairman and am very proud of what we accomplished in the face of unique and unprecedented challenges in both the 2008 and 2010 election cycles.
I will always remain humbled and grateful for the opportunity to travel this magnificent state where I was born and raised and to work with Republican leaders and elected officials in all 64 counties as state chairman.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2011/02/07/dick-wadhams-drops-out-of-state-gop-chairmans-race/22599/
“Freedom Flyer” arrested at TSA checkpoint
“NOT GUILTY” VERDICT BY JURY ON ALL CHARGES, FRIDAY, JAN. 21, 2011!
- Video of the verdict and excerpts from Phil Mocek’s reaction
- Audio of Mr. Mocek’s comments outside the courtroom immediately after the verdict (complete and unedited)
- Our analysis of the significance of the verdict
- Video of the incident from Mr. Mocek’s camera (as shown to the jury except for the addition of the subtitled transcript)
- Complete audio archive and photos of the trial (except jury selection)
- Help pay off Mr. Mocek’s legal bills
Criminal Case 2573709, Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court, Albuquerque, NM.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is this case about?
Phil Mocek (click photo for hi-res)
Phil Mocek (pronounced “MOE-seck” or “MOE-s?ck”) was arrested by Albuquerque police at a TSA checkpoint at the Albuquerque International Sunport on November 15, 2009. He had a valid ticket on Southwest Airlines (”You are now free to move about the country”), and was attempting to get to his flight. Like the “Freedom Riders” of the 1960s on interstate buses, Mr. Mocek sought to exercise his Federally and Constitutionally-guaranteed right to travel, but was arrested by local police for alleged violations of state and local laws and ordinances.
Why was Mr. Mocek arrested?
Even after Mr. Mocek’s trial and acquittal, we still don’t know. The first statement by the police (on their own live audio recording) was that he was being arrested, “for being stupid”. The real motivations of the police for arresting Mr. Mocek remain a potential issue at trial. Based on the available evidence, we are concerned that Mr. Mocek was arrested because he declined to show ID credentials, declined to answer questions about his identity, and/or because he attempted to photograph and record his interactions with the TSA and police – all of which were activities protected by the First Amendment and other laws.
What were the charges against Mr. Mocek?
He was charged with criminal trespass (Albuquerque Code of Ordinances § 12-2-3), resisting, obstructing or refusing to obey a lawful order of an officer (§ 12-2-19), concealing his identity with intent to obstruct, intimidate, hinder or interrupt (§ 12-2-16), and disorderly conduct (NMSA § 30-2-1). [Note: It appears that direct links to sections of the Albuquerque Code of Ordinances will work only after you first click on the Albuquerque Code of Ordinances link and then on either "frames" or "no frames", to set the required cookies in your Web browser.] The maximum penalties, if he had been convicted, could have been up to 6 months in jail for disorderly conduct (a “petty misdemeanor” under New Mexico state law), and 90 days in jail for each of the ordinance violations, for a total maximum sentence of 15 months in jail.
Was Mr. Mocek guilty of any of these crimes?
No. The jury acquitted Mr. Mocek without his having to testify or present any evidence in his defense. The prosecution failed to meet their burden of proving that Mr. Mocek had committed any crime.
There is no evidence of any of these crimes in the audio and video recordings released by the police. Mr. Mocek was calm, polite, and nonviolent. There is no evidence that he was disorderly, made any attempt to “conceal” his identity, or had any obstructive intent. As a ticketed passenger, his right of transit through the airport and the TSA checkpoint and by the airline as a common carrier was guaranteed by Federal law, the First Amendment, and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He was not trespassing, and any police order to leave the airport would have been unlawful.
(If something like this should happen to you, be aware that police and custodians of public records aren’t always aware of what recordings they may have, of the technical features of their recording and archiving systems, or of the possibility that audio and video archiving systems may generate logs of what recordings are accessed or deleted, when, and by whom. As this incident (chronology) in Seattle showed, digital recordings aren’t necessarily “deleted” automatically, and may not be overwritten until long after police assume that they have been deleted. If you are requesting records of a police encounter, be sure to include a request for any system logs of access, viewing, and/or deletion of the recordings, and be extremely skeptical of any claims that digital recordings are actually “erased” on a fixed schedule, rather than merely flagged as potentially available to be overwritten.)
Why is this case important?
So far as we know, this was the first time someone in the USA was arrested or charged with a crime for attempting to exercise their right to travel by air without showing ID or answering questions about themselves or their trip, or for photography or audio or video recording at a TSA checkpoint.
Is there any law that requires you to show ID credentials to fly, or to the police?
No. In Gilmore v. Gonzales (decided at 435 F.3d 1125), a case involving the same airline, lawyers for the TSA swore to the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals that no Federal law or regulation requires airline passengers to show any evidence of their ID in order to fly.
Is there any law that requires you to answer questions from the TSA or police?
No. You have the right to remain silent. Mr. Mocek explicitly invoked this right.
Is there any law or regulation that prohibits or restricts photography or audio or video recording at TSA checkpoints or of police?
No. Prior to his flight out of ABQ, Mr. Mocek received written confirmation from Albuquerque TSA staff that, “There aren’t any state or city laws/ordinances that prohibit photography in the public areas of the airport.”
Do you have a right to travel by air?
Yes. The “public right of freedom of transit” by air is guaranteed by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and the TSA is required by Federal law (49 USC § 40101) to consider this right when it issues regulations. Airlines are common carriers. Mr. Mocek’s attempted trip was an exercise of “the right … peaceably to assemble,” which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Freedom of movement is also guaranteed by Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a human rights treaty signed and ratified by the US.
Can local police lawfully interfere with your right to travel, by air or otherwise?
No. The TSA checkpoint is a Federal facility, the airport and airline are Federally certified, and the right of travel by air is guaranteed by Federal law. Any interference with the passage of ticketed passengers, under color of state or local authority, would violate 42 USC § 1983. Interference by local police with air travel is forbidden by the same laws that forbade Southern sheriffs from interfering with interstate bus travel by Freedom Riders. In this sense, we see Mr. Mocek as a modern-day “Freedom Flyer.”
What happened in the trial?
Phil Mocek was found “NOT GUILTY” on all counts by a jury on Friday, January 21, 2011, at the conclusion of a two-day trial in Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court in Albuquerque, NM.
Jury trial in State of New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek (Criminal Case 2573709) began on Thursday, January 20, 2011, before Judge Kevin L. Fitzwater. A jury was selected and heard opening arguments and the first prosecution witness on Thursday. Testimony and arguments were completed and the jury returned its verdict of “NOT GUILTY” on all counts on Friday, January 21, 2011, after about an hour of deliberations. [Complete audio archive and photos of the trial (except jury selection)]
Did Mr. Mocek testify or present any evidence in his defense?
No. The jury found that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof, based solely on the evidence introduced by the prosecution (including the video from Mr. Mocek’s camera).
Mr. Mocek did not testify, and the defense rested without calling any witnesses or presenting any evidence. The jury found that even without rebuttal, the TSA and Albuquerque police had failed to satisfy their burden of proving any of the four charges: concealing his identity, refusing to obey a lawful order (it was never entirely clear whether this was supposed to have been an order to turn off his camera, an order to leave the airport despite having a valid ticket, or an order to show ID, none of which would have been lawful orders), trespassing, and disorderly conduct.
The best evidence in the case was the video from Mr. Mocek’s digital camera that both the TSA and the police had tried to stop Mr. Mocek from filming, and which ended when they seized his camera out of his hands and shut it off. In her closing argument, defense counsel Molly Schmidt-Nowara argued that the police and TSA witnesses were not credible, that their testimony was contradicted by the video and by common sense, that what they really objected to was having Mr. Mocek legally take pictures, and that any disorderly conduct was on the part of the police and TSA.
The verdict of “NOT GUILY” on all counts shows that the jurors saw through the police and TSA lies.
What did the TSA and police witnesses testify about the authority of TSA “officers,” flying without ID, and using cameras in airports?
Uncontested TSA and police testimony at the trial established, among other things, three important points:
- Despite calling themselves “officers”, TSA checkpoint staff are not law enforcement officers and have no police powers — and both TSA and police are fully aware of this. When the TSA calls for the police, they are just like any other civilians who call the police, and the police have no obligation to do what they ask. Police should not act, and have no right to act, in such a case, unless the police have a reasonable basis for believing that a crime has actually been committed or is being committed.
- You have the right, recognized by the TSA, to fly without showing ID. “It happens all the time. We have a procedure for that,” according to the lead TSA “Travel Document Checker” at the Albuquerque airport. Signs and announcements in airports saying that all passengers must present ID are false.
- You have the right, recognized by the TSA, to photograph or film anywhere in publicly accessible areas of airports including TSA checkpoints, as long as you don’t violate any local laws, photograph the images on the screening monitors, interfere with the screening process, or slow down the line. (Whether those limitations to your First Amendment rights claimed by the TSA are legal or Constitutional was not decided in this case, since Mr. Mocek wasn’t violating any local law, filming the images on the screening monitors, interfering with the screening process, or slowing down the line.) Signs or statements that photography is prohibited at Federal checkpoints are, in general, false.
Annoying the TSA is not a crime. Photography is not a crime. You have the right to fly without ID, and to photograph, film, and record what happens. Your best defense is your own camera and microphone. Ordinary jurors know, and were prepared to recognize with their verdict in this case, that the TSA and police lie about what they are doing and why.
What does the Identity Project hope will happen as a result of this “NOT GUILTY” verdict?
We hope that Mr. Mocek’s acquittal will encourage and empower others to question the unlawful demands of the TSA — including their demands that we waive our right to remain silent, provide them with evidence as to our identity, and submit to virtual strip-search machines or groping — and to photograph and record our interactions with the TSA’s cop-wannabes and rent-a-cops and the local law enforcement officers who provide their muscle.
(See also our FAQ: What you need to know about your rights at the airport, and the information about dealing with police encounters from FlexYourRights.org.)
We also hope that this verdict will teach police not to blindly back up the TSA when the TSA calls upon law enforcement officers to “deal with” travelers to whose actions the TSA has, for whatever reason, taken a dislike. This verdict shows that jurors can see through their lies when they make up stories and false accusations against travelers.
What can I do to help now that Mr. Mocek has been acquitted?
Contribute to Mr. Mocek’s defense fund. Mr. Mocek has incurred many thousands of dollars of expenses to hire private lawyers and to return repeatedly to court hearings in Albuquerque from his home in Seattle. Contributions can be made online via Paypal. Note that the Paypal donation receipt will read, “Canabis Defense Coalition”, as this is the group that volunteered to collect donations for Phil’s defense. But all funds donated will go to Phil’s defense.
Contributions by cash, check, or money order can be sent directly to Mr. Mocek’s lawyers. Checks must be payable to “Freedman Boyd et al.” You can indicate “Phil Mocek defense fund” in the memo field. Send to:
Phil Mocek legal defense
Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Ives & Duncan PA
20 FIRST PLAZA CTR NW STE 700
ALBUQUERQUE NM 87102-5802
If you would like your contribution to Mr. Mocek’s defense fund to be tax deductible (or if your employer will match your contributions to tax-exempt charities), you can send it to CDC, a Washington-state 501(c)(3) IRS-recognized public charity, earmarked for Mr. Mocek’s defense fund:
Phil Mocek legal defense
Cannabis Defense Coalition (CDC)
PO BOX 45622
SEATTLE, WA 98145
Spread the word about this case and what it means. Organize a gathering to discuss the issue. Stand up for your own rights, and “just say no” to demands for ID. See our website or contact us for more on how to get involved.
What is the Identity Project?
The Identity Project (PapersPlease.org) provides advice, assistance, publicity, and legal support to those who find their rights infringed, or their legitimate activities curtailed, by demands for ID, and builds public awareness about the effects of ID requirements on fundamental rights. We are part of the First Amendment Project, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based in Oakland, CA.
What is the role of the Identity Project in this case?
We went to Albuquerque to observe and report on Mr. Mocek’s trial (since the trail was not recorded or transcribed by the court, our recordings are the only complete record of the trial), to help explain the issues it raises, and to support Mr. Mocek’s rights (1) to travel without showing ID credentials or answering questions from the TSA or police and (2) to photograph and record his interactions with TSA and police officers. Contact us for more information or if you’d like to arrange for an interview or speaker from the Identity Project. Nothing we say should be taken as legal advice or as representing Mr. Mocek or his attorneys (Nancy Hollander and Molly Schmidt-Nowara).
How can I get more information about this case?
- Complete audio archive (and photos) of the trial (except jury selection)
- Documents obtained by Mr. Mocek in response to his requests under New Mexico’s public records laws, including police reports and audio and video recordings
- Video of the incident from Mr. Mocek’s digital camera (as played to the jury except for the subtitled transcript)
- Mr. Mocek’s responses to questions from the press in the hallway outside the courtroom, immediately after the verdict
- Our report on the verdict and analysis of what it means
- Articles in the Identity Project blog about the case
- Discussion of the case in the travel “security” forum at Flyertalk.com (more here)
- Contribute to Mr. Mocek’s defense fund. Contributions can be made online via Paypal. Note that the Paypal donation receipt will read, “Canabis Defense Coalition”, as this is the group that volunteered to collect donations for Phil’s defense. But all funds donated will go to Phil’s defense. Contributions by cash, check, or money order can be sent directly to Mr. Mocek’s lawyers: Phil Mocek legal defense, Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Ives & Duncan PA, 20 FIRST PLAZA CTR NW STE 700, ALBUQUERQUE NM 87102-5802.
- FAQ: What you need to know about your rights at the airport
- Information about dealing with police encounters from FlexYourRights.org
- For case records, go to the county court website, complete the “captcha”, and enter “CR” in the “prefix field and “2573709″ in the “criminal case number” field. Note that the case has been listed on the docket and in some of the other police and court documents with Mr. Mocek’s name misspelled as “Moesack”.
How can I contact Mr. Mocek or find his own statements about this case?
- Phil Mocek’s blog (Mocek.org)
- “I fought the law and the law lost, but I’m out $20,000″
- Mr. Mocek’s responses to questions from the press in the hallway outside the courtroom, immediately after the verdict (complete and unedited)
- Video of the verdict and excepts from Phil Mocek’s reaction
- Follow Phil Mocek (@pmocek) on Twitter
- Phil Mocek’s profile (pmocek) and links to postings in the FlyerTalk forums
What have Albuquerque and other news media and blogs said about this case?
- “New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek: A Quick Reminder on ID and Photography at TSA Checkpoints,” Jan. 28, 2011 (after the trial, but not mentioning that Mr. Mocek was acquitted until a later update)
- “TSA case goes to trial tomorrow in Albuquerque,” Dec. 6, 2010
- “TSA trial postponed indefinitely,” Dec. 9, 2010
- “Phil Mocek: You don’t have to show ID to fly,” Jan. 26, 2011
- “Papers!?! Puh-lease!,” with guest Edward Hasbrouck of the Identity Project, Dec. 7, 2010 (2 hours, 8 installments on Youtube) (single 2-hour stream on Ustream.TV)
- Follow-up, Dec. 8, 2010
- “The Patience of Phil Mocek,” with guest Edward Hasbrouck, Jan. 20, 2011
- “Phil Mocek: NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS!,” with guest Phil Mocek, Jan. 21, 2011
- “Man faces charges for defying TSA agents”, Dec. 9, 2010 (also on Youtube)
- “Woman suing TSA over what she calls invasive search”, Dec. 11, 2010 (includes complaint against TSA and update on Mocek case)
- “Trial begins for WA man who refused to show ID at Sunport”, Jan. 20, 2011, 12:30 p.m.
- “Trial underway for man who refused to show ID to TSA agents”, Jan. 20, 2011, 5 p.m. (includes video of excerpts from prosecution and defense opening arguments)
- “Update:Trial begins for WA man who refused to show ID at Sunport”, Jan. 20, 2011, 6 p.m. (also on Youtube)
- “Man acquitted of charges from refusing to show TSA agent ID,” Jan. 21, 2011 (also on Youtube)
- “‘Freedom Flier’ Or Royal Pain?,” Jan. 19, 2011
(Note that in Gilmore v. Gonzalez, the TSA swore to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that no TSA rule requires passengers to show ID, despite the statements to the contrary on the TSA website. The TSA has kept the policies and procedures for travel without ID secret, even though they were shown in camera to the judges of the 9th Circuit, who ruled that no ID was required. We are currently appealing the TSA’s refusal to release these policies and procedures in response to our Freedom of Information Act request. Mr. Mocek has not been charged with any violation of Federal law or TSA regulations.) - “‘Security Checkpoint Case Opens,” Jan. 21, 2011
- “Man Who Refused To Show ID at Sunport Acquitted.” Jan. 22, 2011
- “Phil Mocek: On Trial For Being TSA Checkpoint Worker’s Worst Nightmare,” Jan. 19, 2011
- “Jury Finds Phil Mocek Not Guilty of All Charges From TSA Arrest,” Jan. 22, 2011 (updated Jan. 24, 2011, with some of the most extensive quotes from Mr. Mocek after the verdict)
- “Seattle man on trial for refusing to show ID to TSA agents,” Jan. 20, 2011
- “Freedom Fighter or TSA’s worst nightmare?,” Jan. 20, 2011
- “Seattle man acquitted in TSA airport case,” Jan. 21-22, 2011
- “TSA vs. Seattle man: ‘He’s taking pictures of all of us’ (VIDEO),” Jan. 24, 2011
- “Man arrested after refusing to show TSA his identification,” Nov. 17, 2009
- “Man Cleared of All Charges Stemming From TSA Arrest over Video,” Jan. 21, 2011
- “Phil Mocek’s Video Still Infuriating Despite his Legal Victory Against TSA,” Jan. 26, 2011
- “No ID Requirement at Airports, TSA Admits,” Feb. 2011, p.1
- “Defiant Traveler Prevails in Court,” Feb. 2011, p. 1
- “Passenger cleared after TSA checkpoint stare-down,” Jan. 29, 2011
- “TSA Blog finally points out that Philip Mocek was found not guilty,” Jan. 30, 2011
- “US Constitution Upheld — TSA Slapped Down,” Jan. 23, 2011
- “TSA Spin Machine Runs Wild,” Jan. 29, 2011
- “A disingenuous update,” Jan. 31, 2011
http://www.papersplease.org/wp/mocek/
Common Cause Asks Court About Thomas Speech
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: February 14, 2011
WASHINGTON — Discrepancies in reports about an appearance by Justice Clarence Thomas at a political retreat for wealthy conservatives three years ago have prompted new questions to the Supreme Court from a group that advocates changing campaign finance laws.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/us/politics/15thomas.html?_r=3&hpw=&pagewanted=print
Published: February 14, 2011
WASHINGTON — Discrepancies in reports about an appearance by Justice Clarence Thomas at a political retreat for wealthy conservatives three years ago have prompted new questions to the Supreme Court from a group that advocates changing campaign finance laws.
When questions were first raised about the retreat last month, a court spokeswoman said Justice Thomas had made a “brief drop-by” at the event in Palm Springs, Calif., in January 2008 and had given a talk.
In his financial disclosure report for that year, however, Justice Thomas reported that the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative legal group, had reimbursed him an undisclosed amount for four days of “transportation, meals and accommodations” over the weekend of the retreat. The event is organized by Charles and David Koch, brothers who have used millions of dollars from the energy conglomerate they run in Wichita, Kan., to finance conservative causes.
Arn Pearson, a vice president at the advocacy group Common Cause, said the two statements appeared at odds. His group sent a letter to the Supreme Court on Monday asking for “further clarification” as to whether the justice spent four days at the retreat for the entire event or was there only briefly.
“I don’t think the explanation they’ve given is credible,” Mr. Pearson said in an interview. He said that if Justice Thomas’s visit was a “four-day, all-expenses paid trip in sunny Palm Springs,” it should have been reported as a gift under federal law.
The Supreme Court had no comment on the issue Monday. Nor did officials at the Federalist Society or at Koch Industries.
Common Cause maintains that Justice Thomas should have disqualified himself from last year’s landmark campaign finance ruling in the Citizens United case, partly because of his ties to the Koch brothers.
In a petition filed with the Justice Department last month, the advocacy group said past appearances at the Koch brothers’ retreat by Justice Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia, along with the conservative political work of Justice Thomas’s wife, had created a possible perception of bias in hearing the case.
The Citizens United decision, with Justice Thomas’s support, freed corporations to engage in direct political spending with little public disclosure. The Koch brothers have been among the main beneficiaries, political analysts say.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/us/politics/15thomas.html?_r=3&hpw=&pagewanted=print
Border activist convicted in deadly home invasion
– Mon Feb 14, 5:49 pm ET
TUCSON, Ariz. – The leader of an anti-illegal-immigrant group was convicted Monday in a home invasion robbery that left a 9-year-old girl and her father dead in what prosecutors said was an attempt to steal drug money to fund the group's operations.
A Tucson jury found Shawna Forde, 42, guilty of murder in the May 2009 killings of Raul Flores, 29, and his daughter Brisenia at their home in Arivaca, a desert community 10 miles north of Mexico.
The jury deliberated for seven hours over two days. Forde was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder for the shooting of Flores' wife and related aggravated assault and robbery counts.
The jury will return to Pima County Superior Court on Tuesday to decide if the death penalty should be considered.
Forde had pleaded not guilty.
Her attorney, Eric Larsen, argued that Forde was never inside the home. Prosecutors disputed that contention, saying Forde was the ringleader if the operation and the law is clear.
"She didn't put a gun to Brisenia's head ... but she was the one in charge," prosecutor Rick Unklesbay told jurors. "Because of that you must hold her accountable."
Larsen said Forde talked a big game, but "she frankly just didn't have the wherewithal to do this."
Calls seeking comment from Larsen on Monday were not immediately returned.
Forde is the leader of the Minutemen American Defense, a small border watch group. Prosecutors argued that she planned the attack to help fund its anti-immigrant operations.
Authorities said Forde and two men dressed as law enforcement officers, forced their way into Flores' home then shot him, his daughter and wife, Gina Gonzalez, who survived her injuries after getting into a gun battle with the attackers.
Flores was believed to be involved with drug trafficking, police said, but officers don't think the assailants found much cash or drugs in the home.
A 911 recording released by the Pima County sheriff's office captured Gonzalez pleading for help after her husband and daughter were shot. She was heard crying out in pain from a gunshot wound then becoming frantic as the attackers returned.
The sound of nine gunshots was heard as Gonzalez engaged the intruders.
"Oh my God, I can't believe they killed my family," Gonzalez said on the recording.
Police said Gonzalez shot and wounded one of her attackers, Jason Eugene Bush, who officers believe was the gunman.
Another man, Albert Robert Gaxiola, is accused of providing information about the area.
Bush and Gaxiola go on trial in the spring.
Before coming to Arizona, Forde lived in Everett, Wash., where she ran for the City Council in 2007, promising to allow police to check the immigration status of suspects, according to news accounts.
Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, said his group expelled Forde in 2007 amid allegations of lying and pretending to be a senior leader. Forde began her own group, bragging that it would be going after drug cartels, he said.
"We knew that Shawna Forde was not just an unsavory character but pretty unbalanced, as well," Simcox said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110214/ap_on_re_us/us_border_activist_trial
TUCSON, Ariz. – The leader of an anti-illegal-immigrant group was convicted Monday in a home invasion robbery that left a 9-year-old girl and her father dead in what prosecutors said was an attempt to steal drug money to fund the group's operations.
A Tucson jury found Shawna Forde, 42, guilty of murder in the May 2009 killings of Raul Flores, 29, and his daughter Brisenia at their home in Arivaca, a desert community 10 miles north of Mexico.
The jury deliberated for seven hours over two days. Forde was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder for the shooting of Flores' wife and related aggravated assault and robbery counts.
The jury will return to Pima County Superior Court on Tuesday to decide if the death penalty should be considered.
Forde had pleaded not guilty.
Her attorney, Eric Larsen, argued that Forde was never inside the home. Prosecutors disputed that contention, saying Forde was the ringleader if the operation and the law is clear.
"She didn't put a gun to Brisenia's head ... but she was the one in charge," prosecutor Rick Unklesbay told jurors. "Because of that you must hold her accountable."
Larsen said Forde talked a big game, but "she frankly just didn't have the wherewithal to do this."
Calls seeking comment from Larsen on Monday were not immediately returned.
Forde is the leader of the Minutemen American Defense, a small border watch group. Prosecutors argued that she planned the attack to help fund its anti-immigrant operations.
Authorities said Forde and two men dressed as law enforcement officers, forced their way into Flores' home then shot him, his daughter and wife, Gina Gonzalez, who survived her injuries after getting into a gun battle with the attackers.
Flores was believed to be involved with drug trafficking, police said, but officers don't think the assailants found much cash or drugs in the home.
A 911 recording released by the Pima County sheriff's office captured Gonzalez pleading for help after her husband and daughter were shot. She was heard crying out in pain from a gunshot wound then becoming frantic as the attackers returned.
The sound of nine gunshots was heard as Gonzalez engaged the intruders.
"Oh my God, I can't believe they killed my family," Gonzalez said on the recording.
Police said Gonzalez shot and wounded one of her attackers, Jason Eugene Bush, who officers believe was the gunman.
Another man, Albert Robert Gaxiola, is accused of providing information about the area.
Bush and Gaxiola go on trial in the spring.
Before coming to Arizona, Forde lived in Everett, Wash., where she ran for the City Council in 2007, promising to allow police to check the immigration status of suspects, according to news accounts.
Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, said his group expelled Forde in 2007 amid allegations of lying and pretending to be a senior leader. Forde began her own group, bragging that it would be going after drug cartels, he said.
"We knew that Shawna Forde was not just an unsavory character but pretty unbalanced, as well," Simcox said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110214/ap_on_re_us/us_border_activist_trial
Monday, February 14, 2011
67% of Pakistani journalists say US drones attacks are acts of terrorism: survey
By Sahil Kapur
Monday, February 14th, 2011 -- 11:15 am
WASHINGTON – Two out of three Pakistani journalists view United States drone strikes in the region as acts of terrorism, according to a new study conducted by Washington State University and Pakistan's Lahore University of Management Sciences.
Only 27 percent of Pakistani journalists said the US drone attacks did not constitute acts of terrorism. Six percent did not know. The study surveyed 395 Pakistani journalists and was supported by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
That said, about one in five also didn't view the Mumbai attacks of 2008, or the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl, as acts of terrorism.
The figures still underscore the public relations debacle facing President Barack Obama as his administration oversees a continuing drone program in western Pakistan, in an effort to wipe out Islamic extremists spilling over to the eastern side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
The unmanned drone strikes in the region began under the Bush administration and have continued unabated under the Obama administration. The volume and frequency of the attacks has intensified in recent years, according to collected reports.
Northwestern Pakistan is believed to be a hotbed for activity among Islamic extremist groups.
Although US officials say the drone attacks have killed high-ranking members of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, Pakistani and international media have reported that innocent civilians are also dying in the process.
Three-quarters of the Pakistani journalists viewed the American people are favorably, but a whopping 77 of them had a negative view of US foreign policy.
"Indeed, as the United States broadens its effort to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, it would do well to look into the heads of the journalists who shape opinions in those societies," wrote Lawrence Pintak of Washington State University and Syed Javed Nazir of Lahore University in the New York Times.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/67-of-pakistani-journalists-say-us-drones-attacks-are-acts-of-terrorism-survey/
Monday, February 14th, 2011 -- 11:15 am
WASHINGTON – Two out of three Pakistani journalists view United States drone strikes in the region as acts of terrorism, according to a new study conducted by Washington State University and Pakistan's Lahore University of Management Sciences.
Only 27 percent of Pakistani journalists said the US drone attacks did not constitute acts of terrorism. Six percent did not know. The study surveyed 395 Pakistani journalists and was supported by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
That said, about one in five also didn't view the Mumbai attacks of 2008, or the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl, as acts of terrorism.
The figures still underscore the public relations debacle facing President Barack Obama as his administration oversees a continuing drone program in western Pakistan, in an effort to wipe out Islamic extremists spilling over to the eastern side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
The unmanned drone strikes in the region began under the Bush administration and have continued unabated under the Obama administration. The volume and frequency of the attacks has intensified in recent years, according to collected reports.
Northwestern Pakistan is believed to be a hotbed for activity among Islamic extremist groups.
Although US officials say the drone attacks have killed high-ranking members of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, Pakistani and international media have reported that innocent civilians are also dying in the process.
Three-quarters of the Pakistani journalists viewed the American people are favorably, but a whopping 77 of them had a negative view of US foreign policy.
"Indeed, as the United States broadens its effort to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, it would do well to look into the heads of the journalists who shape opinions in those societies," wrote Lawrence Pintak of Washington State University and Syed Javed Nazir of Lahore University in the New York Times.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/67-of-pakistani-journalists-say-us-drones-attacks-are-acts-of-terrorism-survey/
Shirley Sherrod Sues Andrew Breitbart Over Video
Eric Lach | February 14, 2011, 10:36AM
Shirley Sherrod, who was fired from her USDA job last year after Andrew Breitbart posted online an edited video of her, has filed a lawsuit for libel and slander against Breitbart in D.C. Superior Court. The suit was filed on Friday, and Breitbart was served with it this weekend, while attending the Conservative Political Action Conference, according to The New York Times.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/shirley_sherrod_sues_andrew_breitbart_over_video.php?ref=fpblg
Shirley Sherrod, who was fired from her USDA job last year after Andrew Breitbart posted online an edited video of her, has filed a lawsuit for libel and slander against Breitbart in D.C. Superior Court. The suit was filed on Friday, and Breitbart was served with it this weekend, while attending the Conservative Political Action Conference, according to The New York Times.
Sherrod was the Georgia Director of Rural Development for the USDA until July, when Breitbart posted the edited video, in which she was shown telling the Coffee County, GA NAACP about a time she didn't help a farmer as much as she could have because he was white. The video made national news, and Sherrod was forced to resign shortly after its release. But when the NAACP released the full version of the video -- in which it was clear Sherrod was speaking about overcoming her own racial prejudices -- the story turned. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs offered Sherrod public apologies, and she was offered a new job at the USDA -- which she turned down.
A press release on Breitbart's website Big Government responds to the suit against Breitbart and Breitbart.tv head Larry O'Connor, but does not refer to Sherrod by name, and does not mention the edited video. Instead, the release titled "Andrew Breitbart on Pigford Lawsuit: 'Bring It On,'" focuses on the Pigford settlement, which paid black farmers who said they had been discriminated against by the USDA. Breitbart's statement alludes to Sherrod as "a central figure in the Pigford 'back-door' reparations case."
"I find it extremely telling that this lawsuit was brought almost seven months after the alleged incidents that caused a national media frenzy occurred," Breitbart said in the statement. "It is no coincidence that this lawsuit was filed one day after I held a press conference revealing audio proof of orchestrated and systemic Pigford fraud. I can promise you this: neither I, nor my journalistic websites, will or can be silenced by the institutional Left, which is obviously funding this lawsuit. I welcome the judicial discovery process, including finding out which groups are doing so."
The statement also says that Breitbart "categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech and, to reiterate, looks forward to exercising his full and broad discovery rights."
Sherrod and her husband, a civil rights activist, received a multi-million-dollar settlement as part of the first Pigford settlement, resulting from discrimination the couple faced while running a collective farm in Georgia.
But when TPM reported last year that the release of the Sherrod video coincided with a Senate vote on Pigford II, Breitbart wrote us an email denying the connection.
"No. Seriously. On everything I hold dear," Breitbart wrote. Shortly before the video was released, the NAACP had passed a resolution condemning racist elements of the Tea Party movement, and Breitbart claimed the group was the video's real target.
"This was never about Sherrod. It was CLEARLY telegraphed at NAACP -- on Thursday when I, gulp, told Ben Jealous to 'go to hell' for spending week attacking racism with Tea Party. That the media and White House have turned this into me versus Sherrod is silly. My consistent angle is defending Tea Party from this predictable line of attack," Breitbart told TPM at the time.
Sherrod has hired a big-time lawyer to represent her: Thomas D. Yannucci. A partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Yannucci's bio boasts that he has been selected as "one of America's Leading Lawyers for Business in Litigation/General Commercial and in Media & Entertainment by Chambers USA every year since 2003." He also had a lead role in Chiquita Brands' claims against the Gannett Company Inc. and The Cincinnati Enquirer in the 1990s.
Back in July, Sherrod told CNN she would like to "get back at" Breitbart, and said she was considering suing.
TPM's attempts to contact Breitbart on Monday were not immediately successful.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/shirley_sherrod_sues_andrew_breitbart_over_video.php?ref=fpblg
Top Reagan DOJ official slams Scalia for ‘secretly’ meeting tea party members
By Sahil Kapur
February 14, 2011 @ 9:50 am
WASHINGTON – A top Justice Department official under President Ronald Reagan tore into Justice Antonin Scalia for holding a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill with tea partyers.
"Justice Antonin Scalia galloped beyond the farthest boundaries of judicial propriety in secretly meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss the Constitution with Tea Party members of Congress saddled with a co-equal duty to assess the constitutionality of legislative action," Bruce Fein, Reagan's associate deputy attorney general, wrote in a published letter [1] to the New York Times.
"If there are better ways to destroy public confidence in judicial impartiality, they do not readily come to mind."
Scalia last week attended a private gathering with on Capitol Hill, ostensibly to discuss the Constitution, with a group of tea party lawmakers led by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), the leader of the House Tea Party Caucus.
Fein wrote that "[n]o justice has ever testified on the constitutionality of bills before Congress," and noted that former Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign for privately advising President Lyndon Johnson.
"[J]ustices must be above suspicion," he added.
Scalia, 74, was nominated to the bench by Reagan in 1986, as has reliably voted on the conservative side of issues during his tenure.
His actions only fueled criticisms that members of the Supreme Court are evolving into partisan entities, more openly expressing political preferences and losing their stature as neutral arbiters of the Constitution.
Another recent target of the same misgivings has been conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife Ginni Thomas came under fire for openly cozying up with the tea party movement and involving herself with activism on its behalf.
URL to article: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/top-reagan-doj-official-slams-scalia-for-tea-party-meeting/
URLs in this post:
[1] letter: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/opinion/l11scalia.html?_r=3
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/top-reagan-doj-official-slams-scalia-for-tea-party-meeting/print/
February 14, 2011 @ 9:50 am
WASHINGTON – A top Justice Department official under President Ronald Reagan tore into Justice Antonin Scalia for holding a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill with tea partyers.
"Justice Antonin Scalia galloped beyond the farthest boundaries of judicial propriety in secretly meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss the Constitution with Tea Party members of Congress saddled with a co-equal duty to assess the constitutionality of legislative action," Bruce Fein, Reagan's associate deputy attorney general, wrote in a published letter [1] to the New York Times.
"If there are better ways to destroy public confidence in judicial impartiality, they do not readily come to mind."
Scalia last week attended a private gathering with on Capitol Hill, ostensibly to discuss the Constitution, with a group of tea party lawmakers led by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), the leader of the House Tea Party Caucus.
Fein wrote that "[n]o justice has ever testified on the constitutionality of bills before Congress," and noted that former Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign for privately advising President Lyndon Johnson.
"[J]ustices must be above suspicion," he added.
Scalia, 74, was nominated to the bench by Reagan in 1986, as has reliably voted on the conservative side of issues during his tenure.
His actions only fueled criticisms that members of the Supreme Court are evolving into partisan entities, more openly expressing political preferences and losing their stature as neutral arbiters of the Constitution.
Another recent target of the same misgivings has been conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife Ginni Thomas came under fire for openly cozying up with the tea party movement and involving herself with activism on its behalf.
URL to article: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/top-reagan-doj-official-slams-scalia-for-tea-party-meeting/
URLs in this post:
[1] letter: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/opinion/l11scalia.html?_r=3
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/top-reagan-doj-official-slams-scalia-for-tea-party-meeting/print/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
