Cuba won't respond to Maine woman's lawsuit

Press Herald/ Scott Dolan
Staff Writer

Sullivan, left/ latinamericanstudies.org

The woman is seeking to enforce a $21 million judgment for the 1963 wrongful death of her father.

BANGOR – A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Stockton Springs woman against the Republic of Cuba because the island nation failed to respond to repeated summonses by the court.

 A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Stockton Springs woman against the Republic of Cuba because the island nation failed to respond to repeated summonses by the court.

Courtesy of Wikipedia

Sherry Sullivan sued earlier this year, after winning a ruling in state court in 2009 that Cuba was guilty of the wrongful death of her father, a pilot who is believed to have been shot down over Cuba in 1963 while on a covert mission.

The judge who ruled in Waldo County Superior Court on Aug. 10, 2009, awarded Sullivan $21 million plus interest, according to federal court records.

Sullivan's filing in U.S. District Court in Bangor sought to enforce the $21 million judgment for the "extrajudicial torture and extrajudicial killing" of Geoffrey Sullivan.

U.S. District Judge George Singal ordered the case dismissed without prejudice -- meaning it can be brought forward later -- after receiving no response from Cuba to three orders, court records show.

The lawsuit in state court alleged that Geoffrey Sullivan, who was 29 at the time, was captured and later died in a Cuban jail.

The state and federal lawsuits argued that Cuba was liable under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

Sullivan's attorney, David Van Dyke, did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment.

'Hate speech' targets 2nd Amendment supporters

WND.com.

Michael Carl

“If this hate speech leads to hate crimes, people like Piers Morgan and Chris Matthews will be partly responsible.”

That’s the word from Second Amendment Foundation Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb on the issue of the vitriol that is being directed both at gun owners and firearms rights organizations in the aftermath of the Connecticut school shooting tragedy.

Gottlieb said the hostile tone against gun owners may lead to actual “hate crimes,” and some of the communications that have come into his office have been “vulgar.”

“We have received some vulgar e-mails from people that want us to vanish for the sake of a civilized world,” Gottlieb said. “This kind of rhetoric does not contribute to any rational discussion.”

He said the level of dialogue is only heightening a violent atmosphere.

“Vitriol like this only promotes hate, but apparently it’s OK to perpetuate bigotry so long as you are an anti-gunner, and a liberal. If anyone is harmed as a result of this hate campaign, we expect them to be prosecuted under the hate crimes laws,” Gottlieb said.

The Examiner reported Texas Democratic Party leader John Cobaruvvias tweeted that NRA supporters should be shot.

“Can we now shoot the NRA and everyone who defends them?” he asked.

Cobaruvvias is not the only one to post an angry tweet. From a Democratic Party Twitter feed came “Murder every NRA member” and another too vile and violent to reproduce here.

Ironically, the NRA reports that in the days following the Connecticut school shootings, the gun group gained membership. One report said that the NRA has gained 8,000 new members each day since the Connecticut shootings.

But the rhetoric on television and in columns has been strident.

One of the clearest examples of the tone in the dialogue is the exchange between Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt and CNN host Piers Morgan.

In the interview Pratt said, “I think we need to ban gun control laws that keep people from being able to protect themselves. The problem is not going to go away if we ban this or that gun. We’ve tried that. That doesn’t work. Doesn’t even work in England. You have mass murders there all over Europe. There have been mass murderers.”

The dialogue:

Morgan: “You’re talking complete and utter – you are talking complete and utter nonsense. ”

Pratt: “The solution is for people to be able to defend themselves at the point of the crime and not wait for 20 minutes for the police to come after everybody is dead.”

Morgan: “What you’ve just said, Mr. Pratt, was an absolute lie. The gun murder rate in countries like Britain or Germany or Australia, who’ve all suffered massacres many years ago, similar nature, have – there are 35 people killed a year. Your country has 12,000.”

Pratt: “Your murder rate has – your murder rate is lower than ours, that is true. Your violent – ”

Morgan: “Lower? It’s 75 against 12,000 in Australia. ”

Pratt: “Your violent crime rate – ”

Morgan: “They had a massacre. And they got rid of these assault weapons.”

Pratt: “Your violent crime rate is higher than ours as is the violent crime rate in Australia. America is not the Wild West that you are depicting. We only have the problem in our cities, and unhappily, in our schools where people like you have been able to get laws put on the books that keep people from being able to defend themselves.

“I honestly don’t understand why you would rather have people be victims of a crime than be able to defend themselves. It’s incomprehensible. ”

Morgan: “You’re an unbelievably stupid man, aren’t you?”

Pratt: “It seems to me that you’re morally obtuse. You seem to prefer being a victim to being able to prevail over the criminal element. And I don’t know why you want to be the criminal’s friend. ”

Morgan: “What a ridiculous argument. You have absolutely no coherent argument whatsoever. You don’t – you don’t actually give – ”

Pratt: “You have no – ”

Morgan: You don’t give a d—, do you, about the gun murder rate in America? You don’t actually care. All you care about – ”

See the exchange:

Salon editor Jacob Sugarman contributed to the tone by his report on Pratt’s interview with Chris Matthews. Sugarman compared Pratt to a snake in his article.

“The reptilian executive director of Gun Owners of America, last seen telling gun control advocates that ‘they have the blood of little children on their hands,’ argued that we are less free without automatic rifles and need to stay prepared,” Sugarman wrote, inserting the quote from Pratt.

“Does this mean that the Gun Owners of America’s 300,000 members are preparing to revolt?” Sugarman also wrote.

Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Communications Director Dave Workman says the current atmosphere isn’t helping the situation and that his group wants to open a real dialogue.

“We want to really study the issue of what causes violence in America. We want to examine the issue of mental health in America and take a hard look at violent video games and television shows,” Workman said.

Workman says his group’s interest is to bring the discussion back to the factors that really cause violence.

SAF President Joseph Tartaro said focusing on guns alone “to the exclusion of possible other causative factors is doomed to failure.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/hate-speech-targets-2nd-amendment-supporters/#dWdoH22vMflROh8x.99

Media & Politicians Stir Up Frenzy But Won’t Report Educational “Child Find” Law That Could Have Prevented Newtown, CT Massacre

NoisyRoom

In light of the recent massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, we learn today that, “The Newtown school gunman’s mother was so angry at education chiefs for failing her son, she thought ‘screw them’ and refused to stop dealing with them anymore, a relative has claimed. Nancy Lanza pleaded for better services for her disturbed son Adam, but was apparently rebuffed so many times, she took it upon herself to home school him.”

One can imagine there isn’t a Special Education Director who isn’t wondering if they could do more to identify students with mental health disorders. In fact, there are some who know they can do more – *and the law requires them to do it. However, the administrative apparatus of the public school system is managed in a way that restricts access to the supports and services needed by children with mental illness or disabilities.

Too often, pressure from school Superintendents require Special Education Directors to reduce their budgets, thus leaving Directors no choice but to purposely deny eligibility, interventions, appropriate services and/or supports to children who need them. In essence, school districts claim these children are fine or they’re “cured” because they really don’t need interventions or services despite clear warning signs that something’s very wrong.

Adam Lanza was no exception. Educational professionals report they saw Adam Lanza’s problems as early as 9th grade. At Newtown High School, he was often having episodes and the protocol used by the school was to call his mother, Nancy Lanza, and have her come in to diffuse each crisis.

The head of security for the school district at the time, Richard Novia, told AP reporter Adam Geller, “He would have an episode and she’d have to return or come to the high school and deal with it.”

While Nancy Lanza suffered in silence and rarely spoke of the seriousness of Adam’s problems, the indicators of her son’s severe mental illness were there. Nancy Lanza’s friends knew Adam had switched schools more than once and that Nancy tried home schooling him.

John Tambascio said, “I always said that I wouldn’t want to be in her shoes. But I thought, “Wow. She holds it well.”” Russell Hanoman said Adam was “clearly a troubled child.” Ryan Kraft, who babysat Adam when he was younger, said, “His mom Nancy had always instructed me to keep an eye on him at all times, never turn my back or even go to the bathroom or anything like that. Which I found odd, but I really didn’t ask; it wasn’t any of my business.”

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) includes a legal mandate requiring school districts, under the “Child Find” provision, to seek out and find children who exhibit significant problems at school, to include developmental and functional problems; not just academic problems. Most parents aren’t aware of this and the media and politicians won’t tell you about it, but all school districts know.

Under IDEA, anyone concerned about an individual can refer the student, confidentially, to the school district for assessment.

Usually, it is a teacher who refers a student for assessment. Unfortunately, due to the nationwide “budget constraint” mantra from the educational system, we are told that teachers are discouraged by their districts in the referral of students with suspected disorders and that “it’s a big waste of time as districts take no forward motion” according to one teacher who has asked to remain anonymous.

Did Lanza’s school district follow the Child Find law? Did they refer him for a psycho-educational assessment and provide the interventions and services needed? As we now know, they did not.

You may wonder, “Why at school?” Children with mental illness or disabilities experience the majority of their difficulties within and because of school. The random, unpredictable and social dynamics and demands of all school campuses generally intensify the manifestations of a child’s disorder.

Their inability to properly navigate the school environment is the first warning sign that, without proper interventions and supports, they will be unable to navigate in the real world when they reach adulthood.

Unfortunately for parents, their distraught and possibly violent child is often denied an assessment by the school district or, if given an assessment, they’re denied Special Education eligibility and/or appropriate supports and services, especially if the child is demonstrating “adequate academic progress.” Parents are often pleading and begging for help from the school.

This is where school districts misinterpret the law. Clearly, IDEA legislation requires that students who demonstrate issues of functional, social, and/or emotional development are to be assessed and the needed interventions, supports and services must be provided.
If Adam Lanza’s school district had followed the law, they would have requested Nancy Lanza’s consent to conduct a psycho-educational assessment in all areas of suspected disability, which includes mental health, in order to get to the bottom of his mental illness, thus enabling them to determine the interventions and services he needed (to include institutionalization if necessary). In addition, he would have been closely monitored via an Individualized Education Plan (IEP).

Adam Lanza’s problems were no secret; his brother told reporters that Adam suffered from a “personality disorder” (the clinical term is usually “sociopath” or “psychopath”). Adam Lanza’s mental illness was evident and Nancy Lanza’s problems with the school district have been reported.

Ask yourself… could things have been different if the school district had followed the law just a few short years ago? Would it have revealed the severity of his mental illness? Would interventions have been provided that may have prevented the murder of 27 innocents? We’ll never know the real answer to that question now.

But we do know his mother, Nancy Lanza, suffered in silence, was murdered by her son and friends and educators knew something was seriously wrong with Adam Lanza.

Often, when a parent is struggling at home with a child who has a mental illness or disability, they are completely overwhelmed and very few can understand this unless they walk in the parent’s shoes. More often than not, parents are not aware of the laws and provisions of IDEA and rarely do they have the energy or resources to fight the educational apparatus’ complex, bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. Not all school districts create barriers such as what is described in this article, but the problem is that the vast majority do.

Like Nancy Lanza, many parents end up pulling their children out of school and implementing a home school program. Consequently, removed from the social world, the child’s problems may appear to diminish somewhat… but those problems re-emerge when they are adults and attempt to re-enter mainstream society.

Did you know that twelve children commit suicide every day in the US? Everyday. One must ask what educators knew and what they did or didn’t do while those children were in their care.

Adam Lanza became an evil killer and educators saw signs of trouble as early as the 9th grade. One must ask what educators knew and what they did or didn’t do while he was in their care.

For parents of children with autism, it’s important to correct the media’s unsubstantiated reference to Asperger’s Syndrome with regard to Adam Lanza. Although Adam Lanza’s brother said “somewhat autistic,” if reporters had done their due diligence, they would have learned that an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is not a mental illness and it was not in any way related to what Adam Lanza did.

Keep reading  Here >>

Obama Lawyers To Judge: Don't Watch Bin Laden Film

Birther Report:

By Tom Fitton @ Breitbart

The Osama bin Laden raid film "Zero Dark Thirty" opens in limited release later this month. It has received favorable “buzz” and reportedly focuses on characters that seem based upon the very individuals at the CIA and Pentagon to whom the Obama administration gave access to filmmakers Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal. So why are Obama administration lawyers desperately trying to dissuade a federal judge from watching the film?

Why indeed.

Judicial Watch is suing the Obama administration to gain access to records detailing the cooperation between the Obama CIA, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the filmmakers regarding their bin Laden epic. Records we’ve already uncovered demonstrate that the Obama administration gave Bigelow and Boal unprecedented access to information about the raid and those involved.

Obama administration officials also admitted that if the information released to the filmmakers were to be publicly known, it would cause an “unnecessary security and counterintelligence risk.”

The government continues to stonewall the release of records that could shed more light on this “partnership,” and our investigation continues.

In our efforts to gain access to records related to "Zero Dark Thirty," Judicial Watch made an argument in a recent court brief that we believe should be common sense. In determining what information should be released, the court might actually want to review the film at the center of its lawsuit:

In light of the fact that much of the government’s argument hinges on the assertion that the individuals in question will have a continued privacy interest in their names after this film is released, a viewing of "Zero Dark Thirty" after its theatrical release on December 19, 2012 may ultimately be … illuminating.

Obama lawyers, however, are trying to dissuade the judge from actually watching the film. According to an Obama administration court filing last week: “…the CIA and DOD disagree with [Judicial Watch’s] implication that the Court needs to view the movie to decide this case ... The CIA and DOD therefore would oppose any additional attempts by plaintiff to extend the briefing of this case until the movie’s release.”

I should point out that limited release for the film is set for Dec. 19. Judicial Watch’s final brief is due on December 17. Any delay required for the court to review the film would be negligible. By the way, we first asked for these documents in August of last year, and had to sue in January of this year – months of delay. So the Obama administration’s new found concern about “delay” is laughable.

CONTINUED HERE: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/12/10/Obama-Lawyers-to-Judge-Don-t-Watch-bin-Laden-Film

Constitutional Law After Obamacare

ManhattanInst

On Thursday, November 29, 2012, The Manhattan Institute's Center for Legal Policy hosted a conference exploring questions in the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark constitutional decision NFIB v. Sebelius—the Obamacare case. What is the current state of constitutional law? Where is it headed? Where should it go? Four scholars weighed in: Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, professor of law, Georgetown Law; Adam Freedman, author, The Naked Constitution; Michael Greve, visiting scholar, American Enterprise Institute; and Richard Epstein, visiting scholar, Manhattan Institute.

On gay marriage, Supreme Court could rule narrowly or issue sweeping decision

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read >>

Eligibility challenge returns to haunt Florida

WND/ Bob Unruh

cowboybyte.com

A lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s presence on the 2012 presidential election ballot because of questions over his constitutional eligibility that was thrown out by a judge who earlier determined it wasn’t timely has returned to haunt election officials in the state with a request that the Obama victory results be quashed.

“Defendant Barack Hussein Obama is a direct threat to the safety and security of the United States, and its Constitution, which plaintiff must protect and defend by oath,” according to the complaint, which was delivered to Secretary of State Ken Detzner today.

The case earlier this year was dismissed by Circuit Judge Terry Lewis, who said Obama’s eligibility could not be challenged at that time because under Florida election law, technically, Obama hadn’t been nominated to the position.

As WND reported, Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County,” had challenged Obama’s eligibility, arguing that the “natural born citizen” clause was rightly understood in historical context to mean a child not only born in the U.S., but born to two American-citizen parents, so as not to have divided loyalties. Obama, however, readily admits to being born a dual citizen because of his father’s British citizenship.

In his decision then, Lewis noted that the United States Supreme Court has concluded that “every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.”

However, attorney Larry Klayman, who is representing Voeltz, said, “The judge equated being a ‘citizen’ with a ‘natural born citizen’ and cited no authority to conclude the two terms are the same. He quotes other state’s cases, where judges reached that conclusion, but that’s not precedent for him. What other courts said in lower cases means nothing to him.”

Klayman also had been concerned that the judge determined the burden of proof that Obama is ineligible fell on Voeltz – but then refused to authorize discovery in the case which could have confirmed that eligibility status.

“How can you say we have the burden of proof, then not allow discovery?” Klayman asked. “He says we have burden, but doesn’t allow us to meet it.”

And he said Voeltz has standing to bring the case, under Florida law. More >>

Sex with Animals Legal in 20+ States; Gay Marriage: 9/ Medical Marijuana: 18

MidweekPolitics --Sex with animals is legal in more than 20 states, while gay marriage is legal in 9, and medical marijuana in 18.

El avance del chavismo hacia la perfecta dictadura constitucional

La Razón /  Manuel Malaver

articulo350.blogspot.com

La diferencia de la dictadura constitucional con relación a la clásica, tradicional o inconstitucional es que no odia, ama las elecciones; no tolera sino que le son necesarios “ciertos” tipos de libertad de expresión, no está en guerra sino que puede bypasear el sistema de partidos, puede convivir con la sociedad civil si logra limarle sus garrar más punzantes y enconosas y practica un selectivo “respeto” por los derechos humanos donde resultan presos, exilados, heridos o muertos solo aquellos grupos o individuos que califica taimadamente de “enfermos”, “incontrolados”, “desintegrados” o “irredentos”.

En cuanto a derechos más sofisticados como el respeto pleno y generalizado a la propiedad privada (ínsito a toda democracia real), o la tutela de los derechos a las minorías, la protección del medio ambiente y de los que piensan distintos sea en lo ideológico, cultural o religioso, no se piense que los “dictadores de la democracia constitucional” no han tomado sus previsiones, pues para ellos se han cocinado recetas mixtas donde los bienes son expropiados dejándoles a sus legítimos dueños una ínfima parte de los mismos para “su” usufructo, las minorías son medio respetadas solo si participan en el partido o la ideología oficial, los parques o zonas protegidas deben ceder sus espacios a las llamadas políticas sociales y las iglesias universales aceptar la competencia de sectas nacionales que por lo general irrespetan sus doctrinas y cultos.

En nada, sin embargo, son tan idóneos y eficaces los “dictadores constitucionales” como en la construcción de sistemas, maquinarias y eventos electorales, batallas para las que se dotan de armas con tecnologías de última generación (máquinas Smartmatic, captahuellas y cuadernos electorales, por ejemplo), usan del poder del Estado para amedrentar, aventajar, engañar, apabullar y amenazar al adversario) y, lo que es más criminal, para pervertir el derecho del voto comprándolo a través de un clientelismo atroz donde se reparten cocinas, celulares, neveras, tabletas, lavadoras, blackberrys, casas a medio construir, minilaptos, muebles, carros de bajo costo, computadoras y dinero líquido contante y sonante.

De modo que, ¡no sueñen señores teóricos ingenuos devotos del marcusianismo residual y del postmodernismo tardío: la “revolución chavista” es una furiosa promotora del consumo que usa como otra de sus tantas herramientas electorales!

Como también usa las llamadas “misiones” (tan alabadas por cierta oposición) puntal de la seudo política social donde una precaria asistencia a las urgencias de los pobres es pretexto para el control político que después resulta ideal para saber nombres, direcciones, preferencias e historiales de los votantes que luego serán remolcados a las mesas de votación para que sufraguen por el Jefe.

Y aquí llegamos al Eje o Centro de la dictadura constitucional en camino a la perfección, como es la maquinaria electoral chavista, un sistema que ejecuta los “fraudes” en los procesos de elaboración del REP, en el ventajismo sin tregua ni control durante la campaña, la amenaza de dirigentes opositores y votantes, unas autoridades electorales sumisas porque son miembros del partido y funcionarios oficiales, y unos poderes públicos (AN, Defensoría del Pueblo, TSJ y Fiscalía General de la República) que solo atienden abusos si son cometidos por la oposición.

Y last, but not least, la participación de cuerpos de la Fuerza Armada Nacional, como la llamada Guardia Nacional Bolivariana, que actúa cada vez menos desembozadamente en el proceso electoral y durante las votaciones, para cumplir las tareas que le asignen las autoridades civiles o militares chavistas o el Comandante en Jefe en persona.

En otras palabras: que si los votos que cuentan las máquinas de votación se validan aislándolos de los perversos y sinuosos ductos por los que llegaron, seguro que no hay fraude, en cambio que, si se revisan las cañerías y las cloacas, la putrefacción deja al desnudo la ilegalidad de la dictadura constitucional.

Sin forzar un símil: es que como una pelea de boxeo donde uno de los contendores va con una mano amarrada a la espalda, un ojo parchado, y sin protector y recibe, por tanto, un KO fulminante en el primer segundo del primer round con un adversario en plenitud de condiciones. Desde luego que ya en la lona, el réferi no le toca sino contarle los 10 al perdedor y alzarle la mano al ganador ¿pero podría hablarse o admitirse de una victoria legítima, de un campeón que accede a un nuevo record en el ranking porque se impuso a un contrario que combatió de igual a igual? Pienso que no.

La gran pregunta es: conociendo, sabiendo y aun siendo víctima del perverso y corrupto sistema electoral de la “dictadura constitucional” ¿debe la oposición democrática venezolana negarse a participar en él, abstenerse por remilgos de contaminación y no involucrarse en los eventos electorales donde la naturaleza del sistema le permite también conquistar espacios políticos, preservarlos y aun aumentarlos?

Desde luego que la respuesta es “NO”, sobre todo si entendemos que la dictadura constitucional no es un sistema cerrado, al uso de las dictaduras totalitarias de izquierda o derecha, marxistas o fascistas, nazis o polpotistas que asolaron el planeta durante el siglo XX, que su propia naturaleza la obliga al riesgo de perderlo todo por guardar las formas, y que en la capacidad de la oposición de obligarla a que las cumpla, está la fórmula de su éxito, de su triunfo.

De ahí que el error de la oposición no consista en participar en elecciones interferidas, trucadas y maquilladas, sino en pensar que no lo son y, lo que es peor, hacerle creer “a otros” que no lo son.

A este respecto, es indispensable no pensar que los espacios democráticos conquistados se logran solo porque en esas coyunturas los dictadores constitucionales le hicieron a la oposición la concesión graciosa de cedérselos, sino porque la oposición estaba dispuesta a hacer respetar sus votos a dentellada limpia.

Si se me permitiera una definición de la situación de una oposición y de un gobierno en un sistema de dictadura constitucional diría que es de “intimidación mutua”, el de un continuo acecho, en el cual pierde el que se siente más propensos a aceptarle emboscadas, e incluso, bondades al enemigo.

Sin ser fanáticos, ni intolerantes, ni irracionales (nada más lejos de la cultura y el talante democráticos), los demócratas deben comprender que hay situaciones en las cuales la firmeza, la valentía, el coraje y aun la fuerza (que no la violencia) son indispensables para defender la democracia.

En este orden, hay que aceptar que Hugo Chávez ha resultado todo un maestro, pues ni siquiera en las elecciones que perdió en el referendo de diciembre del 2007 fue capaz de aceptar, a posteriori, los resultados.

Todo lo contrario, los aceptó de palabra, y después hizo un referendo o enmienda constitucional ilegal y espúrea, para negarlos y que nunca debió ser admitido por la oposición

La oposición, de otro lado, no ha aceptado la tesis de denunciar en toda su amplia extensión a la “dictadura constitucional” (sistema político que no es nuevo, pero cuyos laberintos, abismos, honduras y cuevas no han sido del todo explorados), y mucho menos de participar en “sus” elecciones sino bajo protesta, denunciando sus ilegalidades y negándose a aceptar sus resultados.

La conclusión aterradora es que día a día la hemos ido convalidando y construyendo en torno a ella la difícilmente franqueable barrera de la legitimidad.

Pero hacer política es, básicamente, aprender y aprender para no cometer los mismos errores.

En este sentido, creo que las elecciones presidenciales del 7-O, si bien es cierto que no nos podían permitir ganar la presidencia de acuerdo a las reglas de la “dictadura constitucional perfecta”, si nos dejaron la guía para derrotarla dentro de poco tiempo y ello se dará en función de estudiarla, descubrirla, denunciarla, y participar, no para que nos engañe, sino para que la engañemos.

Las elecciones del 16 de diciembre serán una excelente oportunidad para demostrar lo que hemos aprendido y ello se dará en la medida de que los electores democráticos voten masivamente, conservemos las emblemáticas 8 gobernaciones y conquistemos otras más.

Canada Supreme Court judge, jury -and possible executioner- with HIV decision

they are not a bunch of santa claus but a lump of idiots and irresponsibles.

------------------------- 

Toronto Sun/ Michele Mandel

TORONTO - The Supreme Court of Canada no longer sees anything criminal in playing Russian roulette with people’s lives.

In a unanimous decision, the highest court in the land has now ruled that because of advances in medical treatment, with HIV no longer the death sentence it once was, it’s no longer a crime for a person to hide their HIV status from their sexual partner — as long as they wear a condom and have a “low viral load.”

No longer is there a blanket duty to inform in those cases. Instead, it’s now their secret to keep. Don’t count on the law, it’s buyer beware — insist on protected sex or live with the consequences.

But how can the infected person’s right to privacy trump that of their partner’s right to know and calculate for themselves whether there is — or is not — any risk to their health?

The Supreme Court was asked to wade in on two cases — one in Winnipeg where the man, since deported, was convicted for failing to disclose his HIV-positive status to nine sexual partners, including a 12-year-old girl; and the other concerning a Montreal woman who was charged with not informing her former spouse that she had HIV.

Because of anti-retroviral drugs, both had low or undetectable levels of HIV. None of their partners contracted the disease.

The high court upheld her acquittal and restored his convictions for aggravated sexual assault for the counts where he had sex without protection.

In updating its original 1998 ruling, the top court said those with HIV don’t have to legally disclose their status unless there’s “a realistic possibility” of transmission. But who defines “realistic?” How low is a low viral load?

The ruling could have been worse. The AIDS/HIV Legal Network had wanted the court to decree that no one with HIV can be prosecuted for non-disclosure — even those who may be highly infectious — as long as they were using condoms. Shocked and dismayed, AIDS activists have called the Supreme Court decision “a huge setback” and further evidence of “AIDS-phobia.”

Nonsense. This isn’t about discrimination; this should be about informed consent.

In an ideal world, there would be no need to criminalize a health issue — one could trust people’s sense of morality to do the right thing. But not surprisingly, some people aren’t keen on telling the person they want to take to bed that they carry a potentially fatal disease.

We have seen more than 130 examples since 1998 of men and women charged with aggravated sexual assault for knowingly hiding their HIV status: The worst among them was former Ontario civil servant Johnson Aziga who was declared a dangerous offender and convicted of first-degree murder after two of his partners died.

Granted, selfish and reckless people like Aziga would still be prosecuted under the newly clarified law.

It’s those on the lower end of the risk spectrum who no longer have any legal obligation to be honest and forthcoming. As long as it’s protected sex, they can sleep with whomever they want without any pillow talk that includes their HIV status. The deception may certainly be immoral, but it’s no longer criminal because the risk of transmission has now been deemed unrealistic. More >>

Fallece Tony Nicklinson, quien luchó por su derecho a una muerte asistida

ElPais.com/ Patricia Tubella

Tan sólo una semana después de perder su última batalla ante la justicia para que se le reconociera el el derecho a una muerte digna, el británico Tony Nicklinson, un hombre de 58 años paralizado de cintura para abajo desde hacía siete años, ha fallecido esta mañana por “causas naturales”. La policía de Wiltshire, su condado de residencia en Inglaterra, parece no cuestionar el dictamen médico de deceso por neumonía, puesto que ha declinado la apertura de una investigación.

Nicklinson llevaba siete días rechazando cualquier tipo de alimentación cuando le sobrevino la muerte, o el final de lo que él mismo calificó de “una pesadilla en vida”, a las 10 de la mañana (hora local). Tomó esa decisión tras conocer la sentencia de la High Court (Alto Tribunal) en la que tres jueces estimaban que no les corresponde a ellos modificar la legislación según la cual “la eutanasia voluntaria equivale a un asesinato”. Aquel día lloró ante las cámaras y denunció la “cobardía” de una justicia que persigue a los médicos y familiares dispuestos a ayudar a morir a un paciente terminal, aunque en la práctica ello no siempre sea así.

“Temo por el futuro y por las miserias que me acarreará”, explicó a través de la pizarra electrónica que se había convertido en su medio de comunicación con el mundo desde que un ataque de apoplejía le dejara sin habla y paralizada casi todo su cuerpo en 2005. Un año antes de que Nicklinson sufriera aquel infarto cerebral durante un viaje de trabajo en Atenas, ya había firmado una directiva a través de la cual rechazaba cualquier tipo de tratamiento de apoyo en el supuesto de convertirse en un enfermo terminal. La enfermedad que le sobrevino meses después recibe un nombre bien gráfico en inglés: ”the locked-in syndorme”, esto es, el síndrome del cautiverio. Mas >>

Bail Break: Loz Kaye on Assange Ecuador asylum request

Professors' challenge to Florida Cuba travel law

Lehigh Acres News Star/

TALLAHASSEE - The U.S. Supreme Court could decide this week whether to hear a challenge to a 2006 Florida law that blocks funding for university professors to travel to Cuba or other countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism.

The Florida International University faculty senate and individual professors challenged the law, contending that it improperly infringes on the federal government's power to make decisions about foreign policy.

"As Congress and the president work to develop a response to current global events that harmonizes the nation's self-interest with the democratic ideals it promotes, the treatment of terrorism and the individuals and nations sponsoring it is at the core of America's foreign policy,'' attorneys for the professors wrote in a brief. "… That the Florida Legislature passed the travel act (state law) to take a harder line against Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria than the president or Congress have taken impermissibly blunts the consequences of the president's discretionary authority to manage relations with the listed states."

But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 upheld the law. In a brief to the Supreme Court, state attorneys wrote that professors are "not constitutionally entitled to demand state support for their academic travel simply because federal law permits such travel."

"Indeed, a state's decision to support academic travel to one country rather than another, and to take into consideration the safety of its faculty and students in making such decisions, does not present an important federal question that should be settled by this court,'' the brief said.

Supreme Court justices are scheduled Thursday to consider whether to hear the case and will make an announcement later. The court receives thousands of petitions a year for it to take cases, but agrees to hear only a fraction. If the court agrees to hear the Florida case, it would start a months-long process that would involve arguments and an ultimate ruling on the professors' challenge.

Oppenheimer Goes Off the Deep End

Capitol Hill Cubans/ Mauricio Claver-Carone

We tend to agree with Miami Herald columnist Andres Oppenheimer.

However, in his latest piece on Florida's Cuba-Syria procurement law (H.B. 959), he really goes off the deep end.

Oppenheimer argues that the new law, which prevents Florida's taxpayer-funded entities from contracting with Castro and Assad's business partners, actually helps these regimes.

Seriously?

Nevermind that this law forces some of Castro's biggest business partners to choose between profiting from tyranny or Florida's taxpayers.

According to Oppenheimer's illogical theory -- concurred by St. Thomas University economist Tony Villamil -- it serves to help Castro as it gives him an excuse to bash the U.S. further.

That's really deep.

Because, of course, if it weren't for H.B. 959, Castro wouldn't bash the U.S. That's just absurd.

And what law gives Chavez an excuse to bash the U.S.?

These tyrants are going to blame the U.S. regardless. Moreover, no one believes them -- except apparently Oppenheimer and Villamil.

But here's the real kicker.

Oppenheimer argues that this will encourage other states to pass laws giving Castro business benefits.

That might seem logical from his desk at the Miami Herald, but it's void in the real world.

As a matter of fact, other states (e.g. Indiana, Michigan and Arizona) have similar laws to H.B. 959 that include Cuba.

Plus, it's ludicrous to think that any legislature and Governor in the U.S. would pass a law to provide public subsidises for business with Castro or any other state-sponsor of terrorism.

If Oppenheimer and Villamil have no problem giving their hard-earned money to Castro and Assad's business partners, then they should set up a voluntary fund to do so.

However, Florida's taxpayers, through the democratic process, have chosen otherwise.

Regresó el espia René Gonzalez a los Estados Unidos

Leer >>

Former Obama Law Student Speaks Out...

foxnews.com/

Read >>

Brothels and pimping legalized in Ontario

Aaron Vincent Elkaim / AP

Terri-Jean Bedford, center, makes a victory sign during a press conference in Toronto on Monday, March 26, 2012 with Nikki Thomas, left, and Valerie Scott, right, after the Ontario's Court of Appeal struck down a ban on brothels, saying a ban on brothels puts prostitutes at risk and is unconstitutional. Bedford, a dominatrix, has argued that Canada's sex trade laws force workers from the safety of their homes to face violence on the streets. More >>

ObamaCare at the Court: A Guide to the Proceedings

By Hans A. von Spakovsky/ 

On Monday, ObamaCare will get its first of several days before the Supreme Court. All nine justices (no recusals) will hear six hours of argument spread over three days. Here’s what to expect:

Monday, March 26, 10:00 a.m. — The Court will hear 90 minutes of argument on whether a federal tax law bars any challenge to the mandate requiring all individuals to purchase or obtain health insurance. At issue will be the 145-year-old Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), which says:

No suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.

Basically, the AIA provides that you cannot sue over a tax until you have paid it. At that point, you can file suit to recover based on claims that the tax was improper or should not have been assessed. The Supreme Court has previously said this law was designed to prevent interference by courts “with the process of collecting the taxes on which the government depends for its continued existence.”

A curious aspect of this argument is that the government is not arguing that the AIA bars a challenge to the individual mandate. The Justice Department has taken the position that the AIA does not apply to the mandate or the penalty for noncompliance because, it maintains, the mandate is not a tax within the meaning of the statute.

The Court itself actually appointed a private attorney — Robert A. Long, Jr., of Covington & Burling — to argue this question in defense of ObamaCare. Long will have 40 minutes, followed by U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., who will have 30 minutes. Gregory G. Katsas, a former Justice Department official and clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas now with Jones Day, will have 20 minutes to argue on behalf of the challengers. Katsas is advancing four arguments on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), all pretty strong, that the AIA does not block the challenge to the mandate.

Tuesday, March 27, 10:00 a.m. — The Court will hear two hours of argument on the main event: the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate that requires all Americans to buy a health insurance policy or be subject to a penalty imposed by the IRS. Arguing on behalf of the 26 states suing the administration is Paul Clement, former solicitor general of the United States during the Bush administration. Arguing for the NFIB is Michael Carvin, another Jones Day lawyer with a distinguished Justice Department record. Both advocates are very skilled and experienced Supreme Court litigators.  More >>

Miami-Dade county attorneys have questions about new law on companies doing business with Cuba

At Tuesday's Miami-Dade commission meeting, Commissioner Esteban Bovo called on Gov. Rick Scott to sign legislation prohibiting local governments from doing business with companies with ties to Cuba -- and on the county to follow it.

"The last time I checked, Miami-Dade County is in the state of Florida, and I would expect that we would comply with the law," Bovo said. "This is something that is very, very serious, and I would strongly encourage that the governor sign this legislation into law."

But Bovo and Chairman Joe Martinez said they have spoken to county attorneys who have raised legal questions about the enforceability of the law.

"We're going to have to bring it up," Martinez told commissioners, suggesting that they'll want to talk about the issue in more depth soon. "I always thought that we had to abide by a state law, but apparently they're preempted by a federal law." 

More >>

Executive-order panic: Martial law in America?

WND/ By Drew Zahn

The White House’s late-week release of an executive order has sent the online community into an uproar, worried that President Obama had secretly provided himself means to institute martial law in America.

In the common practice of dumping government documents on a Friday afternoon, just as the news cycle is wrapping up for the week – a move critics say allows the administration to avoid widespread coverage of embarrassing actions – the White House released an executive order on “National Defense Resources Preparedness.”

Filled with language about “government-owned equipment” and a “defense executive reserve,” among other vague statements, rumors began to spread that the executive order expanded the president’s power to do everything from seizing whole industries to drafting private armies.

A Canada Free Press article titled “Obama Executive Order: Peacetime Martial Law!” spread concerns of gasoline ration cards; while an Examiner article declared the order would “nationalize everything” and “allow for a civilian draft.” Facebook, email and Twitter were suddenly abuzz, and even the extremely popular Drudge Report posted a link to the White House release under the title “Martial Law? Obama Issues Executive Order.”

  More >>