Tuesday, June 29, 2010

McDonald v. City of Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court Decision Opened the Door to Legal Challenges of Gun Laws Across the Country



Click here to read the USSC decision in MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL.

WASHINGTON (June 28) — By extending the Second Amendment right to bear arms to state and local governments, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday opened the door to legal challenges to gun laws across the country. Whether the decision will change the status quo, though, remains unclear.

The case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, strikes down decades-old gun bans in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill. It follows almost two years to the day the court’s landmark Heller decision striking down the District of Columbia’s ban on handgun possession. That case, also decided by an ideologically split court ruling 5-4, applied only to federal laws. Monday’s 214-page decision applies that right to governments at every level.

The decision broadening gun rights was announced just hours before confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan were to begin and underscored just how much is at stake in the makeup of the bench.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, told AOL News he intends “to make sure” Kagan is asked about today’s gun ruling, even though his group has reportedly clamped a lid on testifying at her hearing. “We were assured by the Obama administration that (Sonia) Sotomayor was a Second Amendment supporter, and we saw how that worked out,” he said.

Sotomayor, who was confirmed a year ago as the court’s first Hispanic justice, voted with the liberal minority that would have upheld state and local restrictions on gun ownership and that reaffirmed its dissent in the Heller decision.

As the court recesses for the summer and Justice John Paul Stevens retires from the bench, here is a look at what the gun rights decision means for:

Handgun Bans. They’re done. After the Heller ruling, few observers were surprised that the conservative-led Roberts court would apply its reasoning in the federal enclave to states and local jurisdictions. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito noted that in the previous case, “we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.” What’s good in Georgetown, in other words, is good along Lake Shore Drive.

Chicago. That said, the justices sent this particular case back to a lower court. So, for now, the city’s handgun ban will remain in effect. Still, Mayor Richard Daley didn’t wait for the court to rule to make clear what he would do if his city lost. He vowed to follow Washington’s lead when its local law was thrown out. The capital city passed strict new regulations for prospective gun owners, requiring residents who want to buy a gun to first pass a written test and undergo firearms training.

Gun Control. As a lawyer for the liberal advocacy group Alliance for Justice put it, “This doesn’t say you have the right to go marching around the streets with a gun without a license.”
Wrote Alito: “We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as ‘prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,’ ‘laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.’ We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, (this ruling) does not imperil every law regulating firearms.”

Dave Workman of the Second Amendment Foundation, the Bellevue, Wash.-based group that joined the lawsuit to overturn Chicago’s handgun ban, said the regulations cited by Alito are a far cry from “onerous regulations merely designed to discourage people” from exercising their constitutional right to own a firearm. Among them: licensing, registration, “heavy” permit fees and waiting periods of up to six months. “That kind of stuff is in trouble and it’s in big trouble,” he told AOL News.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Rapper Rick Ross Sued by Drug Dealer

by Dr. Boyce Watkins

I never bought into the hype that Rick Ross was a fraud. Everyone seemed to feel that because he was found to have been a corrections officer in a previous life, that he somehow violated the oath which says that rappers have to be criminals in order to sell records. I don't know how true or false the rumors happen to be, but the fact is that I never cared.


However, when I found out that there is reason to believe that the rapper Rick Ross took his name from the notorious drug dealer "Freeway" Ricky Ross, I thought to myself, "This is just stupid. Why can't the brother just be himself?"

 

Click to read




Ex-Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick indicted on federal fraud, tax charges


Published: Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 3:14 PM

Updated: Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 5:54 PM

Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, already in prison for probation violations, was indicted Wednesday on federal fraud and tax charges, accused of a turning a charity into a personal slush fund for cash, travel, yoga, summer camp and even anti-bugging equipment.


The indictment was the latest blow for Kilpatrick, who in May was sent to state prison for at least 14 months for violating probation in a 2008 criminal case tied to sexually explicit text messages and an affair with a top aide.

The indictment said Kilpatrick, 40, created the Civic Fund in 1999 and gained tax-exempt status after declaring that it would be a social-welfare organization to enhance neighborhoods, help youth and improve Detroit's image.

The government, however, said the goal seemed to be to enrich Kilpatrick. He is charged with failing to report at least $640,000 in taxable income between 2003 and 2008, the value of the cash, private jet flights and personal expenses paid by the fund.

Kilpatrick used the fund to pay for yoga and golf, camp for his kids, travel, moving expenses to Texas, a crisis manager, cars, polling, political consulting and much more, including "counter-surveillance and anti-bugging equipment," according to the indictment.

The indictment said donors were fooled into believing their money would be going to other legal purposes.

"It is important that public officials not escape prosecution just because they leave office," U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade said in a statement. "Public officials need to be held accountable to deter them and others from cheating our citizens in the future."


To continue to read:

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

AP: Judge block Gulf offshore drilling moratorium

Jun 22 01:54 PM US/Eastern
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
Associated Press Writer

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - A federal judge in New Orleans has blocked a six-month moratorium on new deepwater drilling projects that was imposed in response to the massive Gulf oil spill.

Several companies that ferry people and supplies and provide other services to offshore drilling rigs had asked U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans to overturn the moratorium.

President Barack Obama's administration has halted the approval of any new permits for deepwater drilling and suspended drilling at 33 exploratory wells in the Gulf.

Feldman says in his ruling that the Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium. He says it seems to assume that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger.

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9GGFHKG0&show_article=1

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Black Scholar Says NCAA Legally Exploits Black Men

by Dr. Boyce Watkins, Your Black World

Professor Billy Hawkins of The University of Georgia has released a controversial new book that describes the experiences of NCAA athletes by comparing them to slaves on a plantation. According to the research of professor Hawkins, black athletes are exploited by the NCAA physically, financially and intellectually.


Hawkins cites the massive revenue earned by the NCAA via March Madness, which includes a 14-year, $10.8 billion contract with CBS sports. In spite of seemingly unlimited revenues to encourage athletes to stay focused academically, Hawkins notes that nearly one-fifth of the 64 teams participating in the NCAA tournament had graduation rates of less than 40 percent. Across the 36 sports monitored by the NCAA, men's basketball has the lowest graduation rates, where less than two-thirds of the players earn degrees.


The dismal graduation numbers for the NCAA support Dr. Hawkins' research, in which he argues and shows that black athletes at predominantly white institutions are being exploited while being neglected academically. In his book, "The New Plantation," the well-respected Professor of Sport Management and Policy uses a plantation model to present the black male athletic experience as part of a broader historical context.

 

Click to read




Friday, June 18, 2010

Report: Cambridge Police Don't Racially Profile

by Dr. Boyce Watkins, The Institute for Black Public Policy

A recent report to be published Thursday in the Boston Globe is set to show that the Cambridge Police Department does not use racial profiling, as it was accused of doing during the controversial case last summer involving Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates. The report, compiled by the New England Center of Investigative Reporting, analyzed 392 disorderly conduct arrests between 2004 and 2009. During that time, 57 percent of those arrested were white, and 34 percent were black. These numbers almost directly mirror the percentages in the community in which the arrests were made.


I did a great deal of CNN commentary on the Henry Louis Gates case, and to the ire of some of my fellow black scholars at Harvard, I firmly held the position that the Gates case was not about racial profiling. Not to say that the officer didn't violate procedure, but the truth is that there was almost nothing about that case that made me believe that Professor Gates was arrested because he was black.

 

Click to read




Sunday, June 13, 2010

Reggie Wayne's Mistress Takes Him for his Money: He files suit against her

AOL Black Voices

NFL star Reggie Wayne is finding out the hard way that giving your credit card number out to anyone may not be such a good idea. Wayne, who is married, is suing his ummm, girlfriend Natasha McKenzie. In the affidavit, Wayne is alleging that McKenzie did it big on Wayne's credit card without asking his permission.


As the story goes, McKenzie, who is 26 years old, just needed Wayne's credit card for a "few little things," like paying her cell phone bill and buying a plane ticket. She was allegedly going to buy the ticket to come and visit Wayne to spend "quality time" with him. To Reggie's surprise, Natasha and her friends "got a little jiggy" with the credit card and charged up $95,000 worth of "necessities." Actually, there were 333 necessities on her list, which is the number of charges she allegedly made to the account.


Reggie originally took the charges to police in April. He has had the uncomfortable challenge of keeping this information from his wife. McKenzie claims that Wayne knew about the charges all along, and that she is only being scapegoated because either his wife found out about her or he has moved on to another mistress. Either way, this entire situation is a little bit strange. Wayne is not the only athlete to be taken for big money as the result of an affair. Tiger Woods allegedly paid millions to keep some of his mistresses quiet.

 

Click to read




Saturday, June 12, 2010

Officer Taped Spraying Pepper Spray in Detained Suspect's Face

by Dr. Boyce Watkins, Syracuse University

I am not quite sure what to make of the ruffled YouTube video that is now scouring the web out of Paterson, New Jersey. In the video, the woman filming, who mentions that her mother works in the sheriff's office, is taping a New Jersey police officer holding a black man to the ground. The man clearly has his hands behind his back and appears to be restrained.


As the woman videos the incident from a distance, the officer inexplicably grabs the man, turns him around and puts pepper spray into his eyes. He appears to do it twice.

 

Click to read




More Your Black World Blogs

Visit our Other Blogs and Join Our Family!

Syracuse University Scholarship in Action

African American News

Black Celebrity News

Syracuse University

Your Black World

Black Scholars Blog

Black Political Blog

Black News Blog

The Whitman School of Management

clip_image002

Follow us on Twitter!




Thursday, June 10, 2010

15-Year Old Boy Beaten By Police

The Latest

Post Image

Brandon Johnson: 15-Year Old Boy Beaten by Police in Indianapolis

Post Image

OJ Simpson Fights to Get a New Trial in Nevada

Post Image

Oscar Grant Trial Has No Black Jurors




Oscar Grant Trial Has No Black Jurors

by Dr. Boyce Watkins

On New Year's day of 2009, Oscar Grant was shot in Oakland, California. The shooter was a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) officer by the name of Johannes Mehserle. Grant was 22-years old at the time of his death, and the shooting was captured by cell phone cameras and disseminated throughout the Internet. Adding insult to injury, the Grant family just found that there will be no African American jurors in the trial of grant's shooter.


Jack Bryson, whose sons were with Grant the night he was killed, was angry about the jury selection.


"This is like a slap in the face," Bryson told The Associated Press. "This case came all the way to Los Angeles after the judge in Alameda County said they couldn't get a fair and impartial jury there.
"This is the best you can do, and you did this in two days. We could've stayed back in Oakland for this."

Click to read




Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Who is Responsible for Federal Disaster Cleanup? BP or the Federal Government

Well, let's look at WHAT THE LAW SAYS in who is responsible:

Clean Water ActSection 311 - Oil and Hazardous Substances Liability
§ 1321. Oil and hazardous substances liability

(b) Congressional declaration of policy against discharges of oil or hazardous substances; designation of hazardous substances; study of higher standard of care incentives and report to Congress; liability; penalties; civil actions: penalty limitations, separate offenses, jurisdiction, mitigation of damages and costs, recovery of removal costs, alternative remedies, and withholding clearance of vessels.
  • (1) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that there should be no discharges of oil or hazardous substances into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, or in connection with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, or which may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the United States (including resources under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976).
  • (2) (A) The Administrator shall develop, promulgate, and revise as may be appropriate, regulations designating as hazardous substances, other than oil as defined in this section, such elements and compounds which, when discharged in any quantity into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines or the waters of the contiguous zone or in connection with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, or which may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the United States (including resources under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976), present an imminent and substantial danger to the public health or welfare, including, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines, and beaches. (B) The Administrator shall within 18 months after the date of enactment of this paragraph, conduct a study and report to the Congress on methods, mechanisms, and procedures to create incentives to achieve a higher standard of care in all aspects of the management and movement of hazardous substances on the part of owners, operators, or persons in charge of onshore facilities, offshore facilities, or vessels. The Administrator shall include in such study (1) limits of liability, (2) liability for third party damages, (3) penalties and fees, (4) spill prevention plans, (5) current practices in the insurance and banking industries, and (6) whether the penalty enacted in subclause (bb) of clause (iii) of subparagraph (B) of subsection (b)(2) of section 311 of Public Law 92-500 should be enacted.
  • (3) The discharge of oil or hazardous substances (i) into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, or (ii) in connection with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, or which may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the United States (including resources under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976), in such quantities as may be harmful as determined by the President under paragraph (4) of this subsection, is prohibited, except (A) in the case of such discharges into the waters of the contiguous zone or which may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the United States (including resources under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976), where permitted under the Protocol of 1978 Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, and (B) where permitted in quantities and at times and locations or under such circumstances or conditions as the President may, by regulation, determine not to be harmful. Any regulations issued under this subsection shall be consistent with maritime safety and with marine and navigation laws and regulations and applicable water quality standards.
  • (4) The President shall by regulation determine for the purposes of this section those quantities of oil and any hazardous substances the discharge of which may be harmful to the public health or welfare or the environment of the United States, including but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, shorelines, and beaches.
  • (5) Any person in charge of a vessel or of an onshore facility or an offshore facility shall, as soon as he has knowledge of any discharge of oil or a hazardous substance from such vessel or facility in violation of paragraph (3) of this subsection, immediately notify the appropriate agency of the United States Government of such discharge. The Federal agency shall immediately notify the appropriate State agency of any State which is, or may reasonably be expected to be, affected by the discharge of oil or a hazardous substance. Any such person (A) in charge of a vessel from which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged in violation of paragraph (3)(i) of this subsection, or (B) in charge of a vessel from which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged in violation of paragraph (3)(ii) of this subsection and who is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of the discharge, or (C) in charge of an onshore facility or an offshore facility, who fails to notify immediately such agency of such discharge shall, upon conviction, be fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. Notification received pursuant to this paragraph shall not be used against any such natural person in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury or for giving a false statement.
  • (6) Administrative penalties. (A) Violations. Any owner, operator, or person in charge of any vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility-- (i) from which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged in violation of paragraph (3), or (ii) who fails or refuses to comply with any regulation issued under subsection (j) to which that owner, operator, or person in charge is subject, may be assessed a class I or class II civil penalty by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating or the Administrator. (B) Classes of penalties. (i) Class I. The amount of a class I civil penalty under subparagraph (A) may not exceed $ 10,000 per violation, except that the maximum amount of any class I civil penalty under this subparagraph shall not exceed $ 25,000. Before assessing a civil penalty under this clause, the Administrator or Secretary, as the case may be, shall give to the person to be assessed such penalty written notice of the Administrator's or Secretary's proposal to assess the penalty and the opportunity to request, within 30 days of the date the notice is received by such person, a hearing on the proposed penalty. Such hearing shall not be subject to section 554 or 556 of title 5, United States Code, but shall provide a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. (ii) Class II. The amount of a class II civil penalty under subparagraph (A) may not exceed $ 10,000 per day for each day during which the violation continues; except that the maximum amount of any class II civil penalty under this subparagraph shall not exceed $ 125,000. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a class II civil penalty shall be assessed and collected in the same manner, and subject to the same provisions, as in the case of civil penalties assessed and collected after notice and opportunity for a hearing on the record in accordance with section 554 of title 5, United States Code. The Administrator and Secretary may issue rules for discovery procedures for hearings under this paragraph.

Source: http://www.epa.gov/Region7/laws_regulations/CWA/section311.htm


CWA § 311 mandates that the President issue regulations establishing procedures,
methods, equipment, and other requirements to prevent discharge of oil and hazardous
substances from vessels and facilities and to contain such discharges. 33 USC § 1321(c)(1)(A).


The EPA has been delegated the authority to regulate non-transportation related onshore facilities, and the Coast Guard has the authority to regulate tank vessels, transportation-related facilities, and offshore facilities (such as platforms).

So if the LAW (CWA § 311) states that the President (i.e. EPA) has the responsibility of cleaning up discharges of oil in navigable waters of the U.S., why is this not the focus?

Thursday, June 3, 2010

U.S. Supreme Court: Suspects Must Say They Want to Remain Silent (Expansion of Miranda Rights)



By JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) - Want to invoke your right to remain silent? You'll have to speak up.In a narrowly split decision, the Supreme Court's conservative majority expanded its limits on the famous Miranda rights for criminal suspects on Tuesday - over the dissent of new Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said the ruling turned Americans' rights of protection from police abuse "upside down."


Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, said a suspect who goes ahead and talks to police after being informed he doesn't have to has waived his right to remain silent. Elena Kagan, who has been nominated by President Barack Obama to join the court, sided with the police as U.S. solicitor general when the case came before the court. She would replace Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the dissenters.A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are at the top of the warnings that police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations.


But Tuesday's majority said that suspects must break their silence and tell police they are going to remain quiet to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.This decision means that police can keep shooting questions at a suspect who refuses to talk as long as they want in hopes that the person will crack and give them some information, said Richard Friedman, a University of Michigan law professor."It's a little bit less restraint that the officers have to show," Friedman said.


The ruling comes in a case in which a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying he had invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.Kennedy, writing the decision for the court's conservatives, said that wasn't enough."Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."


He was joined in the 5-4 opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.Prosecutors cheered the decision, saying it takes the guesswork out of when police have to stop questioning suspects. "Is it too much to ask for a criminal suspect to say he doesn't want to talk to police?" said Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association.


This is the third time this session that the Supreme Court has placed limits on Miranda rights, which come from a 1966 decision - it involved police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix - requiring officers to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.Earlier this term, the high court ruled that a suspect's request for a lawyer is good for only 14 days after the person is released from police custody - the first time the court has placed a time limit on a request for a lawyer - and that police do not have to explicitly tell suspects they have a right to a lawyer during an interrogation.


For Justice Sotomayor, deciding to make suspects speak to have the right to remain silent was a step too far. Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down.""Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent - which counterintuitively requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."She was joined in her dissent by Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.Supreme Court nominee Kagan had sided with the police in this case. As solicitor general, she told the Supreme Court that the Constitution "does not require that the police interpret ambiguous statements as invocations of Miranda rights."


"An unambiguous-invocation requirement for the right to remain silent and terminate questioning strikes the appropriate balance between protecting the suspect's rights and permitting valuable police investigation," Kagan said in court papers.Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and questioned by police for three hours. At the beginning, he was read his Miranda rights and said he understood.The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering "yes," "no," "I don't know," nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for "shooting that boy down," Thompkins said, "Yes."


He was convicted, but on appeal he wanted that statement thrown out because he said he had invoked his Miranda rights by being uncommunicative with the interrogating officers.The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati agreed and threw out his confession and conviction. The high court reversed that decision."


In sum, a suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to police," Kennedy said. "Thompkins did not invoke his right to remain silent and stop the questioning. Understanding his rights in full, he waived his right to remain silent by making a voluntary statement to the police. The police, moreover, were not required to obtain a waiver of Thompkins' right to remain silent before interrogating him."Sotomayor called that reasoning "a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda v. Arizona has long provided during custodial interrogation."


The case is Berghuis v. Thompkins, 08-1470.


Monday, May 24, 2010

Killer of Three Black College Students Convicted

by Dr. Boyce Watkins, The Institute for Black Public Policy

Nearly three years ago, two black college students and a friend were murdered in a schoolyard in Newark, NJ. Monday, a jury returned guilty verdicts for three of the murders and one attempted murder after deliberating for less than a day.
Rodolfo Godinez, a 26-year old gang member and native of Nicaragua, was convicted of all charges against him, including multiple counts of robbery, weapons possession and conspiracy. He can get up to 30 years to life for each murder count, and the sentences can be given out consecutively.
"This man will never see the light of day," said Robert D. Laurino, the acting Essex County prosecutor.
Sentencing for Godinez is set for July 8. His lawyer, Roy Greenman, said,"Obviously, there will be an appeal on a number of grounds," but he declined to state the grounds on which he'd be filing.
The prosecution did not assert that Godinez was the one who hacked at the victims with a machete or shot each of them execution-style, in the back of the head. He was argued, however, to be the one who summoned the other gang members to the schoolyard on the night when the murders took place. The murders were particularly chilling because all four of the victims were "good kids" with no criminal history and educational plans for the future.

Click to read

 

Find more black news at:

Your Black World

Black Scholars Blog

Black Political Blog

Black News Blog




Sunday, May 23, 2010

32 States Have Borrowed from the Federal Government to Make Unemployment Payments; California Has Borrowed $7 Billion

"And California, via Los Angeles, is complaining about Arizona immigration law? At least Arizona is not BORROWING MONEY FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to pay for unemployment benefits." - Syreeta L. McNeal, CPA, JD

EconomicPolicyJournal.com has learned that 32 states have run out funds to make unemployment benefit payments and that the federal government has been supplying these states with funds so that they can make their payments to the unemployed. In some cases, states have borrowed billions. As of May 20, the total balance outstanding by 32 states (and the Virgin Islands) is $37.8 billion.The state of California has borrowed $6.9 billion. Michigan has borrowed $3.9 billion, Illinois $2.2 billion.Below is the full list of the 32 states (and the Virgin Islands) that have borrowed from the federal government to make unemployment payments, and the amounts that remain borrowed as of May 20 . (Numbers in red are billions)

Alabama $ 283 million
Arkansas 330 million
California 6.9 billion
Colorado 253 million
Connecticut 498 million
Delaware 12 million
Florida 1.6 billion
Georgia 416 million
Idaho 202 million
Illinois 2.2 billion
Indiana 1.7 billion
Kansas 88 million
Kentucky 795 million
Maryland 133 million
Mass. 387 million
Michigan 3.9 billion
Minnesota 477 million
Missouri 722 million
Nevada 397 million
New Jersey 1.7 billion
New York 3.2 billion
N.C. 2.1 billion
Ohio 2.3 billion
Penn. 3.0 billion
R.I. 225 million
S.C. 886 million
S.D. 24 million
Tennessee 21 million
Texas 1.0 billion
Vermont 33 million
Virginia 346 million
Virgin Islands 13 million
Wisconsin 1.4 billion
Total $37.8 billion

Source: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/05/32-states-have-borrowed-from-treasury.html

Nicole Paultre-Bell: Judge Rules Sean Bell Lawsuit Can Proceed To Trial


The fiancé of Sean Bell, the unarmed man gunned down on his wedding day by New York police, will finally have her day in court now that a judge will allow her civil rights case against the NYPD to proceed to trial.

A federal court judge ruled Tuesday to allow Nicole Paultre-Bell and two of Bell’s friends injured in the shooting, to have a trial for a wrongful death lawsuit filed for Bell’s 2008 murder.

City officials were once again asking for a three-month delay on the ruling because police officials have still not decided whether to discipline the five officers involved in the shooting.

Luckily for Nicole Paultre-Bell, Judge Sterling Johnson Jr. stepped in and the trial is scheduled to begin in July.

The news of the impending trial came at a particularly ironic time, the day after Sean Bell’s would be 27th birthday and the day a street in Jamaica, Queens was named Sean Bell Way in his honor.

As previously reported the Justice Department ruled in February that the officers did not violate his civil rights and lacked evidence to prove that they violated his constitutional rights.

Source: http://countusout.wordpress.com/2010/05/23/judge-rules-sean-bell-lawsuit-can-proceed-to-trial/

Monday, May 17, 2010

News: Attorney Says Police Are Covering Up Shooting Facts

by Dr. Boyce Watkins, AOL Black Voices

The attorney representing the family of Aiyana Jones, a 7-year old who was shot dead during a police raid, says police are trying to cover up the truth about exactly what happened. Geoffrey Fieger, the attorney for Aiyana's family, said he's seen three or four minutes of video footage of the raid and claims that the video evidence contradicts what the officers say happened at the scene.
Police are saying that officers threw a flash grenade through the first-floor window of the two-family home and that the girl was killed when an officer's gun accidentally discharged during a struggle with the girl's grandmother inside the house. Fieger argues, however, that the evidence shows an officer throwing the grenade into the home and then shooting into the house from the front porch.
Prior reports from Detroit Police were claiming that Aiyana was shot by a stray bullet from a firearm that accidentally discharged during a scuffle with the child's grandmother. But Attorney Fieger is saying that this is not the case.

 

Click to read




SCOTUS: Sex Offenders Can Be Held Indefinitely

by Dr. Boyce Watkins

The United State Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the federal government has the right and power to keep sex offenders incarcerated after they've served their sentences. To keep him/her, the government must prove that the the offender may be "sexually dangerous" in the future.


"The federal government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the opinion for the majority.The primary plantiff in the case, Graydon Comstock, was certified to be dangerous six days before his prison term was set to end. Comstock had been arrested for processing child pornography and was filing suit with other inmates at the Butner Federal Correctional Complex in North Carolina.

 

Click to read




Sunday, May 16, 2010

Mass Incarceration Remains a Problem here in the US

U.S. incarceration rates by race graph




News: Is Elena Kagan Gay? Supporters Say She is

Elena Kagan's supporters don't do her or gay Americans any favors by publicly expressing their views on her sexual orientation. Whether or not a future justice is a heterosexual or homosexual is irrelevant to questions about fitness to serve on the Supreme Court. That there are some bigoted Americans who would make sexual orientation an issue is no reason to grant them any legitimacy, which occurs when their perverse and offensive interests are addressed. The proper response is to treat the question of sexual orientation as the non-issue that it is and place the burden on the bigots to make their case in the public square… if they dare.

 

Click to read




Saturday, May 15, 2010

Elena Kagan's Nomination Overlooks Black Women

by Dr. Boyce Watkins, Syracuse University

To the disappointment of the Black Women's Roundtable, Elena Kagan was the latest white American to leapfrog in front of black women for a chance to serve on the Supreme Court. The second-class citizenship of African American women has been consistently enforced by our nation, going back 221 years to the date that the Supreme Court was founded. This nomination was especially disheartening for those who felt that the year of Dorothy Height's death would be the perfect time for the nation's first black President to do what should have been done long ago and nominate a black woman for the highest court in the land.

"Needless to say, we are disconcerted by the perceived lack of real consideration of any of the extremely qualified African American women as potential nominees," reads the statement released by the Black Women's Roundtable.
After this is over, President Barack Obama will have serious trouble re-inspiring the millions of African American women who left the Hillary Clinton camp to back his "Hope and change" campaign. There was no logical reason for him to pass over a black woman for consideration for this post, only political reasons. Kagan was the nominee that could shore up the white female vote for mid-term elections and help the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party stop the bleeding set to occur in November. Roland Martin does a wonderful job of breaking down the losses within the black female demographic that are set to occur as a result of the Kagan snub on the Supreme Court.

 

Click to read




Elena Kagan's Cultural Competence Questioned - Duchess Harris

No one is more delighted than I am that esteemed presidential historian, Annette Gordon- Reed will join the faculty at Harvard Law School. Despite the fact that she was recruited by then Dean Elena Kagan, I respectfully disagree with Charles Ogletree that Elena Kagan is a good choice for the Supreme Court.

Ogletree argues that from 2003 until the end of Kagan's deanship in 2009, the number of African American students matriculating rose to an all time high. I am sure this is accurate, but how relevant is it?

Do these numbers speak to the quality and caliber of student life? Are Harvard graduates fully engaged and can they provide an effective and vigorous understanding with matters pertaining to race? Or, are they merely defenders and justifiers of the status quo?

I suggest that Professor Ogletree look at the April 30, 2010 blog post written by Diane Lucas. Ms. Lucas was a guest blogger for FEMINISTE and authored a piece entitled, "The Racist Breeding Grounds of Harvard Law School". Lucas wrote this article to discuss the racist behavior of Stephanie Grace, a graduating student, and to discuss her own experience as a Black student at HLS. Lucas critiqued Kagan's leadership before she knew that Kagan was the U.S. Supreme Court nominee.

 

Click to read




African American Women Don't like Elena Kagan on Supreme Court

E KaganFrom Politic 365: The announcement of Elena Kagan could not really be called a surprise, since the White House went out of its way to all but announce her as their pick over the last week. The Obama Administration dropped hints by the dozens to their favored reporters, who dutifully shared their information with the rest of us. I had come to accept it as a done deal, even though I had been a little perturbed at the way the D.C. pundits only mentioned three or four names from the president's short list, as if the rest of the names on it, like Georgia's ownLeah Ward Sears, were invisible.

It wasn't until I called a friend of mine, an African American lawyer here in Atlanta who had been a diehard Hillary supporter and then a reluctant Barack Obama supporter after he became the Democratic nominee, that I realized that others felt the same way. "First he puts a Hispanic woman on the court. Fine. He's paying back the Hispanics for their support," she said. "Then he puts a white woman on the court. Okay – he's paying them back for coming over to his side after Hillary lost. I see that.

But why do I have to be last? Why do black women always have to be last? I don't think he cares."
Where are the Sistahs? See Politic365 to find out




Friday, May 14, 2010

Legal News: Dr. Boyce Watkins Debates Harvard Law Professor Ronald Sullivan

Dr. Boyce Watkins

Dr. Boyce Watkins

Author and Finance Professor at Syracuse University

Kagan's record on race has White House on edge

4:33 PM on 05/14/2010

OPINION - If Kagan didn't have the courage to stand up against injustice at Harvard Law School, what makes us think she will on the Supreme Court?...

> MORE




Thursday, May 13, 2010

Why Elena Kagan is No Thurgood Marshall

 

From Colorlines.org

Obama’s second Supreme Court nominee clerked for one of history’s greatest racial justice champions. You wouldn’t know it by looking at her career since.

Despite all the hubbub Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination will generate, the truth of the matter is Kagan won’t make much difference to a judicial balance of power that leans rightward. She’ll maintain the status quo: four reliably liberal justices, four reliably conservative justices and one center-right swing voter in Justice Anthony Kennedy. Importantly, that means she will also do little to alter the court’s rightward trajectory on racial justice.

Both Kagan and the White House have made much of her time as a clerk for her self-described mentor, Thurgood Marshall. The hapless Republican National Committee has responded with a bizarre effort to tar her association with one of history’s most celebrated justices. But both sides overstate the connection. Kagan hasn't exactly spent her career as a champion of the racial justice principles Marshall articulated. We need to be asking why that’s the case.

As a Democratic president’s nominee, to be confirmed by a Democratic Senate, we can expect a would-be Justice Kagan to align herself consistently with the liberal voting bloc. After all, today’s Supreme Court appointments rarely let down the presidents who nominate them. Sure, David Souter—whom a wise Latina replaced last summer—was the bane of George H.W. Bush’s existence because of his pro-choice opinions. And retiring Justice John Paul Stevens certainly grew, during his three and a half decades on the court, to become a disappointment for President Gerald Ford’s legacy. I just don’t see that happening to our current constitutional-law-professor president.  

click to read




Wednesday, May 12, 2010

African American Scholars Speaking Up on Elena Kagan

by Dr. Boyce Watkins

I started the day thinking about Elena Kagan, Barack Obama's most recent nominee to the Supreme Court. I was wondering how in the world the president could appoint someone who has no experience on the bench, given the number of highly qualified judges he had to choose from. Then I was informed that this might be a good thing, since the Republicans don't have a judicial record to scrutinize. No problemo.


I then noticed that Kagan has past affiliations with The University of Chicago, The Harvard Law School and Goldman Sachs, and that she was appointed to her position at Harvard by Lawrence Summers, the head of the President's Council of Economic Advisors. I was starting to get uncomfortable at that point, because Kagan's appointment would mean that the entire Supreme Court would be filled with Harvard and Yale grads, which effectively says that every other law school in the country need not apply (so much for having a meritocracy). I also saw a very disturbing pattern of cronyism, elitism and Wall Street loyalty that lets us know that perhaps the President of Hope and Change is not quite what we ordered, making back room deals with his buddies, all for the sake of keeping American power locked into tiny social circles.

Click to read




Reports: Lawrence Taylor will use the "masturbation defense"

REPORT: Lawrence Taylor Will Use “Masturbation Defense” In Rape Case

Read more about REPORT: Lawrence Taylor Will Use “Masturbation Defense” In Rape Case

TAGS: Lawrence Taylor, Masturbation, rape




Black Law Professors disturbed by Elena Kagan's Nomination by Obama

AP photo/Jose Luis Magana

Reports suggest that Solicitor General Elena Kagan may be President Obama's choice for the Supreme Court vacancy.

Like everyone in the legal academy over the last decade, we have watched with admiration the amazing changes that Elena Kagan brought to Harvard Law School. A fractured faculty, divided among ideological lines, seemed finally content, if not united. A boisterous student body was finally pacified. The logjam that had stopped faculty hiring had burst. Indeed, she hired so many new faculty the Harvard Law School’s newspaper’s 2008 April Fool’s issue declared, "Dean Kagan Hires Every Law Professor in the Country."

The first woman Dean of Harvard Law School had presided over an unprecedented expansion of the faculty -- growing it by almost a half. She had hired 32 tenured and tenure-track academic faculty members (non-clinical, non-practice). But when we sat down to review the actual record, we were frankly shocked. Not only were there shockingly few people of color, there were very few women. Where were the people of color? Where were the women? Of these 32 tenured and tenure-track academic hires, only one was a minority. Of these 32, only seven were women. All this in the 21st Century.

 

Click to read




Monday, May 3, 2010

Athletes Get Nothing from NCAA's New $11 Billion Dollar Contract

The NCAA men's basketball tournament is expanding, starting next season, but not on the large scale once expected.

The sport's signature event will grow to 68 teams from 65 in conjunction with a new 14-year, nearly $11 billion television agreement with CBS and Turner Sports announced Thursday. That gives the NCAA a 41% hike in annual media and marketing rights connected to the tournament — and "financial stability through the first quarter of this century," interim President Jim Isch said — without the controversy of a more dramatic move to a 96-team bracket.

Negotiations with CBS/Turner, ESPN and Fox Sports initially had targeted a 96-team field, drawing concern and criticism from traditionalists and others over the impact on the tournament's aesthetics, effect on college basketball's regular season and conference tournaments and potential for further intrusion on players' time and studies.

 

Click to read




Friday, April 30, 2010

Washington Examiner: How Obama could lose Arizona immigration battle

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
April 30, 2010

We know one thing for sure about the fight over Arizona's new immigration law. Civil-rights groups will file a lawsuit trying to kill the law and will ask a federal judge to issue an injunction to keep it from taking effect as scheduled this summer. What we don't know is how those proceedings will be affected by the Obama Justice Department, which is contemplating the highly unusual step of filing its own suit against the state of Arizona. Also unknown is the influence of President Obama himself, who has gone out of his way to raise questions -- some of them strikingly uninformed -- about the law.

The drafters of the law knew the lawsuit was coming; a lawsuit is always coming when a state tries to enforce the nation's immigration laws. What the drafters didn't expect was Obama's aggressive and personal role in trying to undermine the new measure.

....


The problem for Obama and Holder is that the people behind the new law have been through this before -- and won. Arizona is three-for-three in defending its immigration measures. In 2008, the state successfully defended its employer-sanctions law, which made it a state crime to knowingly employ an illegal immigrant. Facing some of the same groups that are now planning to challenge the new law, Arizona prevailed both in federal district court and at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's most liberal federal appeals court.

In federal court in 2005, Arizona successfully defended Proposition 200, which required proof of citizenship for voting and also restricted benefits to illegals. And in 2006, officials won a state-court challenge to Arizona's human smuggling law.

The arguments that liberal groups make against the new law are similar to those made in the past. Foremost among them is the claim that only the federal government can handle immigration matters, and thus the Arizona measure pre-empts federal law.
Lawmakers thought of that ahead of time. "This law was carefully drafted to avoid any legal challenge on pre-emption in two ways," explains Kobach. "One, it perfectly mirrors federal law. Courts usually ask whether a state law is in conflict with federal law, and this law is in perfect harmony with federal law.

"Two, the new law requires local law enforcement officers not to make their own judgment about a person's immigration status but to rely on the federal government," Kobach continues. Any officer who reasonably suspects a person is illegal is required to check with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "As long as the state or city is relying on the federal government to determine immigration status, that will protect against a pre-emption challenge," says Kobach.
But what if the Obama administration argues that the law is a burden on the federal government? Or refuses to assist Arizona in determining a person's legality? The drafters thought of that, too. There's a federal statute -- 8 USC 1373, passed during the Clinton years -- requiring the feds to verify a person's immigration status any time a state or local official asks for it. The federal government cannot deny assistance to Arizona without breaking the law itself.

...

Read more at the Washington Examiner:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/How-Obama-could-lose-Arizona-immigration-battle-92460459.html#ixzz0mdZpNfBn

Should the NAACP Have Taken Money from Wells Fargo? Dr. Boyce and Ben Jealous Give their Points of View

theGRIO SPEAKS




Saturday, April 24, 2010

Should Black People Sue the NCAA?

by Dr. Boyce Watkins

The NCAA just got a bit richer this year, signing a new contract with CBS Sports and Turner Sports for $10.8 billion dollars over 14 years. This contract is a 41% increase over the mammoth deal they originally signed back in 2001. They are also going to expand their tournament field to 68 teams, from the original 65. This is not the total annual revenue for the league. Instead, it simply represents the television rights to air March Madness each year.


The league also has a $55 million dollar, three-year contract with ESPN for the womens basketball tournament and 21 other NCAA championships. Beyond that, the league is also attempting to sell the rights to 60 other national national championships. To make a long story short, the NCAA is making money hand over fist and it's all because they have the biggest, baddest, most entertaining product that "hoods" across America can produce.


As a Finance scholar and businessman, when I hear that someone is working to "sell" something and get money in return, I think about free enterprise and capitalism. I think about the fact that someone (that someone being the NCAA) is working overtime to ensure that they get fair market value for the product they are offering to the world. These ideas of free enterprise also translate to college basketball coaches, many of whom earn as much as $4 million dollars per year, with salaries on par with NBA coaches. In fact, the NCAA earns more money during its post-season tournament than the NFL, NBA and Major League baseball. These are all the symptoms of a professional sports league, and some argue that college athletes should be paid for their work.

Click to read




Thursday, April 22, 2010

Budget crisis puts LA court system at risk

By LINDA DEUTSCH,
AP Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch,
2 hrs 51 mins ago

LOS ANGELES – The nation's largest court system is in the midst of a painful budget crisis that has shut down courtrooms and disrupted everything from divorce and custody proceedings to traffic ticket disputes.

The Los Angeles court system has already closed 17 courtrooms and another 50 will be shut down come September unless something is done to find more money. The judge who presides over the system predicts chaos and an unprecedented logjam of civil and family law cases in the worst-case scenario.

The crisis results from the financially troubled state's decision to slash $393 million from state trial courts in the budget this year. The state also decided to close all California courthouses on the third Wednesday of every month.

What has emerged is a hobbled court system that is struggling to serve the public.

Custody hearings, divorce proceedings, small-claims disputes, juvenile dependency matters and civil lawsuits have been delayed amid the courtroom shutdowns in Los Angeles. Drivers who choose to fight traffic tickets now have to wait up to nine months to get a trial started.

Complex civil lawsuits, those typically involving feuding businesses, could really feel the hit. It now takes an average of 16 months for such cases to get resolved, but court officials expect the cuts to bog down these civil matters to the point that they take an average of four years to finish.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100422/ap_on_re_us/us_court_crisis

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Breyer: Obamacare faces Supreme Court review




Legalnewsline.com

WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline)-Legal challenges to the national health care overhaul signed last month by President Barack Obama will be heard eventually by the U.S. Supreme Court, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer predicted Thursday.Appearing before the House

Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science & Related Agencies, Breyer said the nearly $1 trillion health care plan will likely be heard by the nine-member high court, just as most major federal legislation is reviewed by the justices.Breyer and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas were on Capitol Hill today to testify before the subcommittee on the Supreme Court's budget request for the next fiscal year.As for the high court's relatively light caseload in recent years, Breyer, in response to a question, said that trend could shift given that Congress recently "passed a law with 2,400 pages," referring to the health care reform championed by Democrats.

Friday, April 9, 2010

Foreclosures Hit Rich and Famous

By CRAIG KARMIN And JAMES R. HAGERTY
Wall Street Journal

The rich and famous now have something in common with hundreds of thousands of middle and lower-class Americans: The bank is about to take their homes.

Houses with loans of $5 million or more will likely see a sharp rise in foreclosures this year, according to a RealtyTrac study for The Wall Street Journal.

Just this week, a Tudor mansion in Bel-Air belonging to film star Nicolas Cage was in foreclosure auction and reverted to the lender. On Wednesday, Richard Fuscone, a former top Wall Street executive, declared personal bankruptcy, forestalling a foreclosure auction that had been scheduled this week on his 14-acre Westchester mansion. Last month a Manhattan condominium owned by Italian film producer Vittorio Cecchi Gori was sold in a foreclosure auction for $33.2 million.

In February alone, 352 homes nationwide in this category were scheduled for foreclosure auction, the final step before a bank acquisition. That is the largest monthly number of these so-called notices of sale since the financial crisis began. By comparison, in all of 2009, there were 1,312 such notices.

Economists say the super-wealthy are among the last to lose their homes in a mortgage crisis because they usually have high savings, better access to credit and other means for staving off foreclosure. But many of them work in financial services and other industries hit especially hard by the crisis, and have seen their wealth shrink in the market crash.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304198004575172303998670976.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring




By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer –

3 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the court's oldest member and leader of its liberal bloc, is retiring. President Barack Obama now has his second high court opening to fill.

Stevens said Friday he will step down when the court finishes its work for the summer in late June or early July. He said he hopes his successor will be confirmed "well in advance of the commencement of the court's next term."


To continue reading, follow link below:

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Health care overhaul spawns mass confusion for public

By Margaret Talev
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Two weeks after President Barack Obama signed the big health care overhaul into law, Americans are struggling to understand how — and when — the sweeping measure will affect them.

Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors' offices, human resources departments and business groups.

"They're saying, 'Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?' " said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.

McLean said the call center had been inundated by uninsured consumers who were hoping that the overhaul would translate into instant, affordable coverage. That widespread misconception may have originated in part from distorted rhetoric about the legislation bubbling up from the hyper-partisan debate about it in Washington and some media outlets, such as when opponents denounced it as socialism.

"We tell them it's not free, that there are going to be things in place that help people who are low-income, but that ultimately most of that is not going to be taking place until 2014," McLean said.

Adults with pre-existing conditions are frustrated to learn that insurers won't have to cover them until 2014 (though those under 18 will be protected in late September); then they become both hopeful and confused upon learning that a federal high-risk pool for them will be established in the next few months. "Health insurance is so confusing. You add this on top of it and it makes it even more confusing," McLean said.

The Obama administration is embarking on a years-long public education campaign about the overhaul, including a Web component. However, much of the guidance will depend on Department of Health and Human Services regulations that are still being developed.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/06/91696/health-care-overhaul-spawns-mass.html#ixzz0kQhhjuRl

Obamacare Legal Battle: Florida says 5 more states challenge health reform

"We welcome the partnership of Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada and Arizona as we continue fighting to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens and the sovereignty of our states," Bill McCollum said.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6363NL20100407?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

StairTribune: Law schools struggle to attract minorities

"In my humble opinion, this is not a new phenomenon. Every lawyer of color knows this to be the case in this profession. It is no different in any other privilege profession. One way to improve minority attendance is to have potential and current law school students actively seek relationships with the Alumni of the specific law school. Now, this is not an easy task because most lawyers and judges are very busy and have limited time to devout to extra curricular activity. But, if you are proactive and plan in advance opportunities for networking with alumni of color in the legal profession, it can work.

There is old saying that its takes a village to raise a child. Well, the same analogy still applies in the legal profession. It takes a network of lawyers (and/or judges) of all colors to raise students to become excellent lawyers (or judges) in the legal profession. If you can create this environment, then you will surely see opportunities open for people of color in the legal profession." - Syreeta L. McNeal, CPA, JD

Please review the article below:

By JENNA ROSS,
Star Tribune
Last update: April 6, 2010 - 11:06 PM

More minority students are applying to Hamline University Law School. Acceptances are up, too. But overall diversity? Down a tick from a decade ago.

"That's where the challenge remains," said Donald Lewis, dean. "Our issue is convincing the people we've accepted to come here."

Hamline's struggle is common. Law schools across the nation vie for students of color to diversify classrooms -- and ultimately, courtrooms. Greater diversity will lead to a fairer legal system, they say, and clients demand it.

Yet growth is slow, and, as a recent study shows, representation of some races has even dropped.

That has law schools and law firms working in high schools, preparing undergraduates and launching new admissions programs. Starting April 15, the University of St. Thomas School of Law will accept some students without LSAT scores, which, statistics show, are generally higher for whites than minorities. Other schools are considering similar steps.

To continue to read the article, follow the link below:
http://www.startribune.com/local/90055572.html?elr=KArksUUUycaEacyU

Court: FCC has no power to regulate Net neutrality

April 6, 2010 8:15 AM PDT
by Declan McCullagh
Cnet.com

The Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to impose strict Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
A three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. unanimously tossed out the FCC's August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast, which had taken measures to slow BitTorrent transfers and had voluntarily ended them earlier in the year.

Because the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to any actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the authority to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Tuesday's decision could doom one of the signature initiatives of current FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of Net neutrality rules -- even though Congress has not given the agency permission to begin. (Verizon Communications CEO Ivan Seidenberg, for instance, has said that new regulations would stifle innovative technologies like telemedicine.)

To continue reading, follow link below:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001825-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

Sunday, April 4, 2010

The Racism of the Prison System

This data was gathered from the prison initiative and shows that there is more racism in the US prison system than there was in South Africa During Apartheid:

 


Incarceration is not an equal opportunity punishment

by Peter Wagner
Updated June 28, 2005

On June 30, 2004, there were 2,131,180 people in U.S. prisons and jails. That's a rise of 2.3% during the 12 previous months. Federal prisons are growing almost 5 times faster than state prison populations.

As of June 30, 2004, the U.S. incarceration rate was 726 per 100,000 residents. But when you break down the statistics you see that incarceration is not an equal opportunity punishment.

U.S. incarceration rates by race, June 30, 2004

incarceration rates by race graph

Gender is an important "filter" on the who goes to prison or jail:

incarceration rates by gender graph

Look at just the males by race, and the incarceration rates become even more frightening

incarceraton rates for males by race

If you look at males aged 25-29 and by race, you can see what is going on even clearer

incarceration rates for young males

Or you can make some international comparisons

International rates of incarceration graph

South Africa under Apartheid was internationally condemned as a racist society. What does it mean that the leader of the "free world" locks up its Black men at a rate 5.8 times higher than the most openly racist country in the world?

Statistics as of June 30, 2004 from Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2004, Tables 14; except for the race rate statistics which are calculated from Table 13 and Census Bureau population estimates. South Africa figures from Marc Mauer, Americans Behind Bars: The International Use of Incarceration. All references to Blacks and Whites are for what the Bureau of Justice Statistics and U.S. Census refer to as "non-Hispanic Blacks" and "non-Hispanic Whites".)




Friday, April 2, 2010

PiercePoints.com: The U.S. Government Will No Longer be Propping up the Mortgage Markets. Supposedly

Dave Forest
dforest@piercepoints.com
www.piercepoints.com
Copyright 2009 Resource Publishers Inc.

For over a year, the Federal Reserve has been pouring money into American mortgages. Buying "mortgage-backed securities" (MBS), financial instruments whose value is based on a pool of underlying mortgages.

When the financial crisis broke, the market for MBS dried up. Buyers feared that homeowners would default on their mortgages. Driving the value of these assets to almost nothing, or worse.
Financial institutions in America and around the world were left holding trillions of dollars worth of non-saleable MBS. It appeared these holders would be forced to mark down the value of their MBS holdings, potentially triggering another wave of bank (and pension fund, insurance provider, etc.) failures.

The Fed moved decisively to prevent this. Stepping into the MBS market and buying hundreds of billions of dollars worth of MBS weekly in early 2009. Taking these assets off the hands of financial groups.

Of course, to pay for these purchases, the Fed created new money. MBS purchases are one of the major items responsible for ballooning the U.S. monetary base by $1.2 trillion since October 2008.

This is a massive intervention in a troubled market. One that is apparently now over. According to previous announcements, Fed officials planned to wrap up MBS purchases by March 31, 2010. Yesterday should have been the first "Fed-free" day for the mortgage market.

This is a critical change (if in fact the Fed sticks to its plans).

Will the MBS market hold up absent government intervention? Or are there more skeletons in closet, despite the appearance that the economy is getting back on track?

A pullback in Fed buying could expose weaknesses still lingering in the system. Providing some unpleasant surprises for the economy, stock markets and investors.

Keep an eye on these numbers to see if the Fed does indeed go cold turkey. If they do, be extra vigilant on the rest of the mortgage-related data for the next few months.

Source: http://www.oilprice.com/article-the-us-government-will-no-longer-be-propping-up-the-mortgage-markets-supposedly-248.html