"Introducing Democrats Anonymous, for those who are ready to admit that their belief system has failed.."
(John Scotus)
(A must see. Click title)
October 6, 2011
SandBox Comments: Intellectual Conservative "Is The State Bar of Arizona Targeting Conservatives For Blogging And Fighting Illegal Immigration?"
Very interesting case. Be sure to click title and read the entire post.
"Politically motivated prosecutions are always an ugly business because politics is not supposed to stretch into the courtroom. Sadly, that appears to be news to the very liberal State Bar of Arizona. On Monday, the State Bar of Arizona began its prosecution of former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and two of his deputies, including Right Wing News blogger Rachel Alexander.
As County Attorney, Thomas represented Sheriff Joe Arpaio and he worked with Arizona’s conservative legislature, notably Senator Russell Pearce, sponsor of Arizona’s SB 1070, to get tough laws against illegal immigration passed. In 2006, four bills were referred to the ballot and passed into law against illegal immigration, passing with over 70% margins. One of them, Prop. 100, prohibited bail for illegal immigrants charged with felonies. It passed with 78% of the vote. After passage, Thomas began hearing from prosecutors in the office that judges were ignoring Prop. 100 and not enforcing it. Most of the Superior Court judges are extremely liberal, having been appointed by former Democrat Governor Janet Napolitano. Thomas resorted to legal action to get the Superior Court to enforce Prop. 100. He had to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court to get the lower courts to enforce Prop. 100.
Thomas came up with a unique way to prosecute illegal immigrants with a felony, instead of just letting them go with a slap on the wrist. He used a felony smuggling statute to prosecute them, describing them as “smuggling themselves.” With a felony conviction, they would be required to serve time and would not be able to return to the U.S. He even distributed money — which was seized from racketeering funds — to programs for youth run by the Boy Scouts and churches. By law, that money is to be distributed to organizations that keep youth away from crime and drugs. Thomas ensured that it was no longer only distributed to left wing politically correct organizations. Due to the proactive efforts of Thomas, along with Joe Arpaio and Senator Russell Pearce, illegal immigration has greatly decreased in Arizona. The population of illegal immigrants dropped by one-third over two years...."
(John Hawkins)
(Learn more? Click title or comment to start discussion)
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
SandBox Comments: Aspen Daily News/Letter to the Editor " What is there to hide?"
"Well, here we go again. The City Council of Aspen has decided to appeal the ballot ruling. This is predictable and comical. What has become Aspen’s ultimate urination contest (this is a family newspaper) is back and swinging. Mayor Mick and city attorney John Worchester have persuaded the council members to use the tax payers money to appeal this ruling, either to get back at Marilyn Marks or to hide what could be an embarrassing and/or possibly a sinister situation.
The city could just walk away from the Colorado Court of Appeals decision, let Marks get her peak and be done with all this (that is of course if she doesn’t find something). I believe the city is hiding something. Why make this appeal? Is the city guilty of wrong doing or maybe they have destroyed the ballots?
The city has expended tax dollars in the original appeal and had to pay Mark’s attorney fees due their loss. Now they are going to spend more tax dollars and if they lose this round or the Colorado Supreme Court decides not to hear the case, the city will be out that money and will most likely have to pay Mark’s attorney fees again. Both sides have to spend money on attorneys regardless of the supreme court hearing the case or not.
Mayor Mick and the city believes that our tax dollars are their personal slush fund and this scenario is yet another example of their waste. It is time to wake up and stop this ridiculous expenditure. Lets try to spend our tax dollars on responsible projects and not wasteful boondoggles like frivolous lawsuits."
(James H. Perry )
(Learn more? Click title or comment to start discussion)
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
The city could just walk away from the Colorado Court of Appeals decision, let Marks get her peak and be done with all this (that is of course if she doesn’t find something). I believe the city is hiding something. Why make this appeal? Is the city guilty of wrong doing or maybe they have destroyed the ballots?
The city has expended tax dollars in the original appeal and had to pay Mark’s attorney fees due their loss. Now they are going to spend more tax dollars and if they lose this round or the Colorado Supreme Court decides not to hear the case, the city will be out that money and will most likely have to pay Mark’s attorney fees again. Both sides have to spend money on attorneys regardless of the supreme court hearing the case or not.
Mayor Mick and the city believes that our tax dollars are their personal slush fund and this scenario is yet another example of their waste. It is time to wake up and stop this ridiculous expenditure. Lets try to spend our tax dollars on responsible projects and not wasteful boondoggles like frivolous lawsuits."
(James H. Perry )
(Learn more? Click title or comment to start discussion)
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)