Well, most of my previous posts on Mumia have created quite a firestorm.  While there are the expected hate-mongers who seem to be just foaming at the mouth when attacking the integrity of my work supporting Mumia, there have also been folks expressing an interest in learning more, and asking for some more general background.

I am writing this post mostly for them (the open minded ones)...  But this also gives those folks that have been extremely rude to me, an opportunity to explain why my writing is such poor quality. Please, try and find a flaw here.

Here are several key facts from the case (esp look at the alleged hospital confession, and the story of Veronica Jones). Can anyone really claim that the trial was not unfair, and Mumia was not framed? Be sure and watch the Dec. 6 Today Show here:  http://www.youtube.com/...

Last week, death row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal filed an appeal of a March 27 US Third Circuit Court ruling that rejected his bid for a new guilt-phase trial.

Mindfulness meditation can provide a practical tool for busy legal professionals to quiet the mind, enhance clarity and professional effectiveness, and restore a more peaceful balance to their lives. This program will include meditation instruction and practice, and will explore the interplay between contemplative and legal practices and the role meditation can play in the professional and personal lives of lawyers, judges, law professors, law students, and other legal professionals. There will be periods of silent meditation, lectures, and group discussions concerning skills training and the ethical practice of law..

The Center for Contemplative in Society has offered retreats for legal professionals for ten years, offering annual retreats in California since 2004. We are pleased to return to the East Coast to present this special program.

This retreat is co-sponsored by the City University of New York School of Law.

September 11-14, 2008
(Thursday evening through Sunday afternoon)
Menla Mountain Center, Phoenicia, NY
4 hours of MCLE Credits

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

The Courts and Congress have come to believe there is reason for fear.  Enemies are everywhere.  Those who wish to do us harm are in our homes.  They talk to us on our telephones.  Some sashay in through our computers.  "Evil doers" are ubiquitous in the United States.  Our open society places the public at risk.  We, the people, must defend ourselves.  Thus, the Supreme Court and Congress have given the government and us the means.  The highest judicial body in the nation has made it possible for the common man to protect himself with a pistol; Legislators provided the President ethereal firearms.  Indeed, individuals and the Commander-In-Chief were bequeathed more than either had asked for.  In 2008, we have entered the Summer of Separation.  In the United States we say, "Farewell to privacy.  Hello to arms."

A friend of mine that just told one of the T-shirts he sells has resulted in a Cease & Desist Letter from the Republican National Committee.

Here is the image, basically, screw the GOP:

Here is the C&D:

It has been brought to my attention that altahemp.com is marketing a t-shirt featuring a registered trademark of the Republican National Committee ("RNC") without RNC permission; see attached. The RNC owns the trademarks for "GOP" (Federal Trademark Registration Number 2110224) and takes infringements upon its trademarks seriously. Please cease and desist from utilizing the "GOP" trademark or we will be forced to consider a legal remedy.

I trust you understand the need and the right of the RNC to protect ownership over its trademark.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation and immediate attention to this matter. Please contact me if you have any pertinent questions.

Sincerely,

Troy McCurry Associate Counsel Republican National Committee

I am not a lawyer, but I recall that parody is supposed to trump trademark, particularly where political speech is involved.
(more after flip)

Sometimes a little history is in order to understand the evolution of U.S. law and the rights we assume have always been ours.  There's some real food for thought in the kernels of history...and those of you who considering the relative importance of the next choice for SCOTUS and POTUS vs. "Our Constitutional Rights" may enjoy (or need) some context.

America tells an enthralling tale of liberty and justice and rights.  And no, even some of the ones you take for granted now (like the Fourth Amendment protection against wiretapping) weren't always rights, even in my lifetime.

Here's what happens when we let the lobbyists write our laws:

So here on DKos it is important to follow the appropriate copyright laws and not post stuff that would violate those laws.

On other websites, there are also copyright notices that state similar terms, that posting stuff that is not yours, or that you do not have permission to use will result in some sort of penalty like deletion of accounts etc.

July 4th is a good day to read the Declaration of Independence aloud and hand out copies of the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is what the latest FISA battle is about.  Does the US government have the right to search and seize our papers, email, phone calls and persons without probable cause -  AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY DOING - and provide retroactive immunity for the telecommunications and other corporations who have been helping them, without benefit of any legal cause, for the last few years.

Celebrate your independence on the 4th of July.  Read the Declaration of Independence at the bus stop.  Hand out 4th Amendment FISA flyers and copies of the full Bill of Rights then watch the fireworks.

If Congress will not take impeachment action against President Bush, then everyday citizens bear the responsibility of supporting legal action against him.  At the time of this writing at least three different legal actions against the Commander in Chief have been initiated or outlined, though there may be more buried amid the mountains of calls for impeachment.  Of the three, Vincent Bugliosi drew the most attention when he described an ironclad case against Bush for first degree murder.  Two other courageous men have also gotten the ball rolling with different takes on the case, one the dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover and the other the owner of a weekly newspaper in Minneapolis.  Few people here would expect the national media to help further such a cause, but somebody needs to spread awareness of the legitimacy of such cases.  Concerned citizens should take it upon themselves to learn about the thinking behind criminal proceedings against George Bush, and other members of the administration, and use the knowledge to spread awareness of and support for such actions.

Details after the flip.

Crossposted from The Colorado Independent:

A story on NPR's Morning Edition today held an interesting nugget of information on Colorado's possible role in how a President Barack Obama would respond to the growing humanitarian and legal crisis at the controversial U.S. detention camp on Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Just as commentators were noting with amazement how few of this term's Supreme Court rulings were decided by the 5-4 ideological split that seemed to define last term, the Justices issued their decision in the history-making Boumediene case, ruling 5-4 that detainees held at Guantanamo Bay have habeas corpus rights to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. The decision, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy (who controlled the swing vote in so many of last term's cases), has predictably attracted both high praise and condemnation for according noncitizens detained on foreign soil rights under our Constitution.

The ruling carries historical importance not just because of its clearly articulated test for extending constitutional rights beyond our borders, but for the court's emphasis on the importance of preserving the Constitution's separation of powers framework even during wartime. This is the court's fourth rebuke to the Bush Administration for their treatment of detainees in the war on terror, however it results not from overzealous judicial activism by the Judiciary, as some critics would claim, but rather as a result of unconstitutional overreaching in the name of national security by the Executive.

Hi, how are you? I hope good. I think about you. I hope you’re still with me.

So check it out, here’s the latest: turns out I’ve been found guilty of Tampering and Memorialization with debris from a plane wreck on the western part of Santa Cruz Island, when the debris I tampered with and built into a sculpture was on the eastern end. The National Park Service and the United States of America have accused me of something I did not do. I didn't tamper with plane wreck debris from the western end of the island.

The United States of America has attempted to use my Daily Kos diaires against me in this federal proceeding. They're probably reading this, too, so below are two motions I mailed off this week.

Story: http://www.dailykos.com/...
Pictures: http://www.dailykos.com/...

Please please please please please please please.  This diary is not intended as a forum for discussing what the Supreme Court, or society in general, should do on any particular question of gun control.  My interest is solely in what the Court did do in its decision today -- because it's highly counterintuitive and I haven't seen it discussed elsewhere.

Justice Scalia today authored the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which a 5-4 majority of the Court confirmed the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) as an individual right.

As many of us argued before the decision, whether the RKBA was individual or collective was not the most important issue at hand.  The significant question was, if it is an individual right, how and when and to what extent it could be restricted.

Today, among other things, Scalia wrote that the DC law requiring trigger locks was unconstitutional.  What you may not have heard is that this was based on a relative technicality -- a fixable technicality, after which trigger locks would seem to be OK.

Here's Antonin Scalia, asshole supreme and total Bush/GOP partisan: "At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield." This was a statement in his dissent in Boumediene v. Bush, the case that decided that Guantanamo detainees have some constitutional rights.

And here is a retort: False, you lying sack of shit and pathetically unqualified Supreme Court hack!

Only a partisan hack like Scalia would play the fear card by announcing, as he did, that the majority's decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed," and only a partisan hack would cite, as Scalia did, testimony that originated with a party in the case before him, i.e., the administration's false claims, as an authoritative source.

I once had an extensive conversation with someone who insisted that rape is a more terrible offense than murder, and I am confident enough that this is a widely-made assertion and not my own straw man. In light of the recent Supreme Court decision that has determined the unconstitutionality of the death penalty in cases of child rape, which in turn is certainly the most perverse and destructive form of sexual assault, I find it appropriate to explore just how correct the five assenting Justices are in their decision. This is not my condemnation of the death penalty as a practice, which is in my mind completely separate from the ruling and constitutes a wholly different conversation. Suffice it for me to say there is no defensible rationale for that practice outside the realm of guttural assertion.

This is a necessarily sensitive topic. I welcome all points of view in response, but I ask that you read well below the fold before making your decision and reply, and that you respect the candor of the argument over considerations of social grace. This is not and cannot be a happy topic.

Surprise surprise surprise...the administration that will sink below any expectation politicized hiring "many qualified candidates" because of "perceived liberal bias".

As a daily commuter of L.A.’s sprawling freeways—in particular, the horrendous 101-405 interchange—I am no stranger to, or proponent of, our inefficient, myopic, absurdly aggravating system of mass transit. Given an affordable, prompt and convenient alternative—as Munich’s interlocking lattice of S and U-bahns, busses, and trams—I would gladly renounce my car. Developing this infrastructure in even one American metropolis, much less the number required to dent our disproportionate energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions, would require an intense and sustained application of organized political power. It is precisely the sort program progressives should embrace, because no neat, cheap, or painless solutions exist to the long historical trends that spawned these positively reinforcing crises.