President Obama has now taken the unprecedented step of unilaterally ordering the Justice Department to not defend a federal law under court challenge, in this case the Defense of Marriage Act.
As always with such matters concerning "Justice", Attorney General Eric Holder is leading the charge in trampling the rule of law:
"'[T]he President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny,' Mr. Holder said. 'The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.'"
Why, we don't need courts at all anymore in this country. Messrs. Obama and Holder have apparently decided that they are the final arbiters about which laws are constitutional and which aren't, and the other two branches of government can simply go suck eggs.
This overreaching of authority on the part of Dear Leader has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage, no matter what side of that contentious issue one favors, but rather is all about a rogue executive branch arrogantly ignoring a statute which was enacted by Congress, signed into law by a president and which has not to date been struck down by a court.
In other words, Dear Leader has just circumvented our entire system of government by basically telling the nation's law enforcement department not to enforce a law. It doesn't matter one bit if that statute concerns a hot-button issue such as gay rights or such a mundane one as the maximum weight of a semitrailer on the interstate - it's the law of the land until it is repealed or struck down, and the Justice Department is duty bound to prosecute under its auspices and defend any challenges to it in court.
Until today, as one more bit of our Constitution is flagrantly discarded by this community organizer and his minions.
The craziest thing about this whole story is that Dear Leader still can't bring himself to take a position one way or the other on the very issue at hand:
"The White House says President Barack Obama is "grappling" with his personal views on gay marriage even as he's ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of a law that bans it."
The only thing about this entire matter he's "grappling" about is the fact that his liberal base overwhelmingly supports gay marriage while at the same time his black voter base overwhelmingly does not. He needs both constituencies to win reelection in 2012, so it will be very interesting to watch him squirm, vacillate and ultimately not take a position one way or the other. Such indecisiveness on his part truly illustrates the opportunistic, rudderless, incompetent leader he really is.
Showing posts with label courthouse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label courthouse. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Thursday, August 27, 2009
The courthouse saga continues
On Wednesday, August 19, having utterly lost all patience with waiting for the courtesy of a response from Arizona U.S. Marshal David Gonzales regarding my formal complaint about being rousted, unlawfully detained and threatened with arrest by two of his employees for doing nothing more than engaging in lawful behavior on the sidewalk outside the Sandra Day O'Connor Federal Building on April 6, 2009, I decided to call Marshal Gonzales once more (I had previously left a voice mail on his direct line that went unreturned) and speak to him personally about the status of the inquiry.
The attendant "Pete" who answered the phone asked me to hold while he checked to see if the Marshal was available to take my call. He came back and asked me to hold while he connected us, but I was subsequently transferred to some other minion's voicemail.
I called right back and explained to Pete that I had been expecting to speak with the Marshal, not get shuttled once again to someone else's mailbox. He dithered a bit, then consulted with (and brought on the line with us) another (very friendly and helpful) female employee, who subsequently asked me if I would instead be willing to speak with the head of Judicial Security, one Jennifer Harkins.
Are you kidding? Would I ever! As readers may recall, I tried mightily on multiple occasions to politely get ahold of the elusive Ms. Harkins, only to be completely (and rudely) ignored by her. Truthfully, I was starting to doubt her very existence.
Sure, I replied to Pete and the other employee. Seeing as how Marshal Gonzales is apparently unavailable to converse with a citizen about a complaint, I'll chat with Ms. Harkins, if for nothing else than to prove that she is in fact an actual person. I was transferred to her extension, and wonder of all wonders, she actually picked it up. Here's our conversation:
Oh, and lest I be accused of some sort of creative editing, here's the recording of the entire second phone conversation I had with the agency's employees today. It's approximately 6:30 in length:
After this amazing call ended, I began composing this post, and then after further reflection decided to give Marshal Gonzales one more try at personally explaining his and his employees' actions before I went public with this update. I called back once more, and miraculously was put right through to him:
I decided to hold off publishing this update for a few days in order to give Marshal Gonzales a fair chance to follow through on his promise to send me a formal response, even though he had already not returned one phone message left for him and I was beginning to suspect that I was being "slow-played".
On Tuesday, August 25, I received the following letter (please click on it for a bigger image; the original was slightly faded, possibly due to a lack of ink in the printer used to generate it):
First of all, sincere thanks have to be given to the Marshal for actually fulfilling his promise to me, which is a refreshing change from the very unprofessional attitudes of some of his employees.
As to his response (which was obviously hastily thrown together the day before, in my opinion, as shown by the date on the letter), I must respectfully disagree with his conclusions:
1. "you came to the Federal Court House with a video camera"
I did not come to the courthouse, nor was I anywhere near the entrance, as the video plainly shows. I was on the public sidewalk adjacent to the building. In fact, at no time whatsoever during the incident was I on courthouse property.
2. "We take these threats [to blow up a court house] seriously."
As you should, and I do as well, believe it or not. However, I fail to see how a law-abiding citizen engaging in legal behavior would be perceived as a bomb threat. In fact, I take offense to that particular labeling of my activities that day.
3. "You were not detained in any way"
I was told "not yet" by the officers in answer to my question "Am I free to go?". That constitutes "detained" in anyone's book, I'd wager.
4. "Court Security Officers having a conversation with you on the sidewalk does not constitute grounds for a formal complaint."
I would hardly characterize my being threatened with arrest if I continued my lawful behavior a "conversation". By the way, notice how the marshal finally does admit in this sentence that I was indeed on the sidewalk, and not on courthouse property as he earlier infers.
It is quite obvious that I have reached a dead end with Marshal Gonzales in my attempt to reach a satisfactory resolution to the incident that happened to me on April 6, 2009. I will now file a civil rights complaint with the local U.S. Attorney, as well as contact my local Congressman for assistance. These next steps may very well turn out to be exercises in futility as well, but at least I will know that I did everything I could to prevent other law-abiding citizens from being similarly harassed (and having their civil rights trampled in the process) in the future.
The attendant "Pete" who answered the phone asked me to hold while he checked to see if the Marshal was available to take my call. He came back and asked me to hold while he connected us, but I was subsequently transferred to some other minion's voicemail.
I called right back and explained to Pete that I had been expecting to speak with the Marshal, not get shuttled once again to someone else's mailbox. He dithered a bit, then consulted with (and brought on the line with us) another (very friendly and helpful) female employee, who subsequently asked me if I would instead be willing to speak with the head of Judicial Security, one Jennifer Harkins.
Are you kidding? Would I ever! As readers may recall, I tried mightily on multiple occasions to politely get ahold of the elusive Ms. Harkins, only to be completely (and rudely) ignored by her. Truthfully, I was starting to doubt her very existence.
Sure, I replied to Pete and the other employee. Seeing as how Marshal Gonzales is apparently unavailable to converse with a citizen about a complaint, I'll chat with Ms. Harkins, if for nothing else than to prove that she is in fact an actual person. I was transferred to her extension, and wonder of all wonders, she actually picked it up. Here's our conversation:
Oh, and lest I be accused of some sort of creative editing, here's the recording of the entire second phone conversation I had with the agency's employees today. It's approximately 6:30 in length:
After this amazing call ended, I began composing this post, and then after further reflection decided to give Marshal Gonzales one more try at personally explaining his and his employees' actions before I went public with this update. I called back once more, and miraculously was put right through to him:
I decided to hold off publishing this update for a few days in order to give Marshal Gonzales a fair chance to follow through on his promise to send me a formal response, even though he had already not returned one phone message left for him and I was beginning to suspect that I was being "slow-played".
On Tuesday, August 25, I received the following letter (please click on it for a bigger image; the original was slightly faded, possibly due to a lack of ink in the printer used to generate it):
First of all, sincere thanks have to be given to the Marshal for actually fulfilling his promise to me, which is a refreshing change from the very unprofessional attitudes of some of his employees.
As to his response (which was obviously hastily thrown together the day before, in my opinion, as shown by the date on the letter), I must respectfully disagree with his conclusions:
1. "you came to the Federal Court House with a video camera"
I did not come to the courthouse, nor was I anywhere near the entrance, as the video plainly shows. I was on the public sidewalk adjacent to the building. In fact, at no time whatsoever during the incident was I on courthouse property.
2. "We take these threats [to blow up a court house] seriously."
As you should, and I do as well, believe it or not. However, I fail to see how a law-abiding citizen engaging in legal behavior would be perceived as a bomb threat. In fact, I take offense to that particular labeling of my activities that day.
3. "You were not detained in any way"
I was told "not yet" by the officers in answer to my question "Am I free to go?". That constitutes "detained" in anyone's book, I'd wager.
4. "Court Security Officers having a conversation with you on the sidewalk does not constitute grounds for a formal complaint."
I would hardly characterize my being threatened with arrest if I continued my lawful behavior a "conversation". By the way, notice how the marshal finally does admit in this sentence that I was indeed on the sidewalk, and not on courthouse property as he earlier infers.
It is quite obvious that I have reached a dead end with Marshal Gonzales in my attempt to reach a satisfactory resolution to the incident that happened to me on April 6, 2009. I will now file a civil rights complaint with the local U.S. Attorney, as well as contact my local Congressman for assistance. These next steps may very well turn out to be exercises in futility as well, but at least I will know that I did everything I could to prevent other law-abiding citizens from being similarly harassed (and having their civil rights trampled in the process) in the future.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Eerily coincidental timing
Carlos Miller has an exclusive interview with Randall Thomas, a photographer who was arrested on Monday in New York City for filming the FBI building there from across the street:
"During his incarceration, the feds persuaded Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV to sign a search warrant that authorized them to confiscate his camera and memory card, which were not returned to him when he was released six hours later."
We wonder exactly how far away a person has to be from a public building before it's legal to take a picture of it, especially when you don't even have to be physically present to do so these days:
"'It’s crazy how they can arrest me when you can see the same building on Google Maps,' he said."
Following Homeland Security's "logic", why aren't the people in charge of Google Maps in the clink as well?
This situation is starting to get out of hand, and in our minds only reaffirms the necessity of following through with our own complaint in an attempt to force the Feds once and for all to discontinue blatantly breaking the law by repeatedly engaging in this thuggish behavior.
Good work, Carlos.
"During his incarceration, the feds persuaded Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV to sign a search warrant that authorized them to confiscate his camera and memory card, which were not returned to him when he was released six hours later."
We wonder exactly how far away a person has to be from a public building before it's legal to take a picture of it, especially when you don't even have to be physically present to do so these days:
"'It’s crazy how they can arrest me when you can see the same building on Google Maps,' he said."
Following Homeland Security's "logic", why aren't the people in charge of Google Maps in the clink as well?
This situation is starting to get out of hand, and in our minds only reaffirms the necessity of following through with our own complaint in an attempt to force the Feds once and for all to discontinue blatantly breaking the law by repeatedly engaging in this thuggish behavior.
Good work, Carlos.
Okay, I'll bite
Since it's a slow news day and because I feel like doing so, I'll play along and respond to some of the comments from the four or five "anonymous" (as always, I appreciate all comments, but weigh accordingly the statements from people who decline to post under their own name) posters who seem to have a problem with my actions at the O'Connor Federal Building on April 6 of this year. I do find it interesting that these responses all came the same day that I finally managed to speak on the phone with the very unprofessional employee at the Arizona U.S. Marshals Service office who has been ducking me for quite some time. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
1. "all he did was ask you a question which you responded to very rudely"
Was I rude? From the transcript of my audiotape recording of our interaction:
I think you're confusing politeness with cooperation. Since I was engaged in perfectly lawful behavior on a public sidewalk and the guard isn't a sworn law enforcement officer, I was under no obligation to explain myself to him, just as I would feel free to ignore any other private citizen that came up and started quizzing me about what I was doing. I made it clear that I was busy and didn't wish to talk with him further; his lawful options at that point were to either leave me to go about my business or call the Phoenix police and let them handle the situation (remember, I was standing in a place where the guard had no authority over me whatsoever), but he chose to continue to attempt to pry information out of me, at which time I decided to ask if I was free to leave. He responded "Not yet" which constitutes proof that he was in fact detaining me, unlawfully in my opinion.
Once I believed that I was in fact being detained (whether lawfully or otherwise), I naturally refused to provide any other information without having the assistance of legal counsel (again, one of my Constitutional rights), which is precisely why I only said "Am I being detained?" and "Am I free to go?" to him until he threatened me with arrest, and then only to ask with what offense I would be charged with, a question he was unable to answer.
2. "He was just doing his duty and trying to protect a federal building"
I understand and appreciate that fact. The guard's authority and duties, though, do not trump the rights of a law-abiding citizen, however much the government apparently wishes that fact to not be true.
3. "do something productive with your life instead of abusing the civil legal system and trying to bilk money from governement [sic] agencies through using false allegations"
I have filed no legal action and have not asked for a single dime from anyone. The only thing that I have requested from U.S. Marshal David Gonzales is that the officers involved be disciplined as he sees fit for their unlawful actions, and that further training be provided to the officers regarding the limits of their authority. I have further asked that one of his Deputy Marshals be provided counseling regarding acceptable professionalism from a public employee, as well as instruction concerning basic telephone etiquette. My allegations are all factual and fully documented, by the way.
4. "If you are photographing a federal building you need to be looked into"
I wonder what perfectly normal activities you do as part of your daily life that "need to be looked into" by some "authority" or another?
5. "Especially with your anti government views"
I reject that label entirely. I am not anti-government. I am, however, anti-intrusive and authoritarian government, one that would so casually violate the very rights that they purport to hold so dear. I also agitate for it and its official agents to be held accountable under the same laws that they impose on the general population. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
Again, I'll have much more on this topic late next week or early the week after, as I am sincerely giving Marshal Gonzales every possible chance to resolve my long-outstanding complaint in a professional way.
1. "all he did was ask you a question which you responded to very rudely"
Was I rude? From the transcript of my audiotape recording of our interaction:
Guard 1: Good morning, sir.
Me: Good morning.
1: Are you just doing meter checks, or are you videotaping the, uh, building?
Me: I’m a private citizen standing on public property.
1: I know but I’m just asking you a question – are you videotaping the building?
Me: I’m kind of busy right now; I’d rather not answer any questions.
1: You’re not under arrest or anything.
Me: Well, then I’d like to go about my business, thank you.
1: May I see your driver’s license or ID please?
Me: I don’t have any on me, sir.
I think the transcript clearly shows that I was perfectly polite and respectful to the guard when he first approached me. I simply chose to not submit to his interrogation (which is a Constitutional right, at least the last time I checked).I think you're confusing politeness with cooperation. Since I was engaged in perfectly lawful behavior on a public sidewalk and the guard isn't a sworn law enforcement officer, I was under no obligation to explain myself to him, just as I would feel free to ignore any other private citizen that came up and started quizzing me about what I was doing. I made it clear that I was busy and didn't wish to talk with him further; his lawful options at that point were to either leave me to go about my business or call the Phoenix police and let them handle the situation (remember, I was standing in a place where the guard had no authority over me whatsoever), but he chose to continue to attempt to pry information out of me, at which time I decided to ask if I was free to leave. He responded "Not yet" which constitutes proof that he was in fact detaining me, unlawfully in my opinion.
Once I believed that I was in fact being detained (whether lawfully or otherwise), I naturally refused to provide any other information without having the assistance of legal counsel (again, one of my Constitutional rights), which is precisely why I only said "Am I being detained?" and "Am I free to go?" to him until he threatened me with arrest, and then only to ask with what offense I would be charged with, a question he was unable to answer.
2. "He was just doing his duty and trying to protect a federal building"
I understand and appreciate that fact. The guard's authority and duties, though, do not trump the rights of a law-abiding citizen, however much the government apparently wishes that fact to not be true.
3. "do something productive with your life instead of abusing the civil legal system and trying to bilk money from governement [sic] agencies through using false allegations"
I have filed no legal action and have not asked for a single dime from anyone. The only thing that I have requested from U.S. Marshal David Gonzales is that the officers involved be disciplined as he sees fit for their unlawful actions, and that further training be provided to the officers regarding the limits of their authority. I have further asked that one of his Deputy Marshals be provided counseling regarding acceptable professionalism from a public employee, as well as instruction concerning basic telephone etiquette. My allegations are all factual and fully documented, by the way.
4. "If you are photographing a federal building you need to be looked into"
I wonder what perfectly normal activities you do as part of your daily life that "need to be looked into" by some "authority" or another?
5. "Especially with your anti government views"
I reject that label entirely. I am not anti-government. I am, however, anti-intrusive and authoritarian government, one that would so casually violate the very rights that they purport to hold so dear. I also agitate for it and its official agents to be held accountable under the same laws that they impose on the general population. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
Again, I'll have much more on this topic late next week or early the week after, as I am sincerely giving Marshal Gonzales every possible chance to resolve my long-outstanding complaint in a professional way.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Rest assured that we're still hard at work on the case
I spent most of the afternoon today diligently following up on my still-unresolved complaint with U.S. Marshal David Gonzales regarding my being rousted, unlawfully detained and threatened with arrest by two of his security guards outside the Sandra Day O'Connor Federal Building for doing nothing more than taking pictures of the structure from an adjacent public sidewalk.
There have been some recent developments in the case, but I'm not quite ready to reveal them just yet, as I am attempting to give U.S. Marshal David Gonzales every possible chance to do the "right thing" in this incident.
I apologize for being so deliberately cryptic, but I did want to let everyone know that I'm still working towards a resolution to my complaint without also prematurely tipping my hand in the matter.
Hopefully by late next week I'll have some concrete results to report.
There have been some recent developments in the case, but I'm not quite ready to reveal them just yet, as I am attempting to give U.S. Marshal David Gonzales every possible chance to do the "right thing" in this incident.
I apologize for being so deliberately cryptic, but I did want to let everyone know that I'm still working towards a resolution to my complaint without also prematurely tipping my hand in the matter.
Hopefully by late next week I'll have some concrete results to report.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Our patience is rapidly ending
Certified letter out to U.S. Marshal David Gonzales this morning:
Marshal Gonzales:
I received your letter dated May 18, 2009, acknowledging your intent to review and investigate the circumstances regarding my interaction with Court Security Officers on April 6, 2009, and the subsequent rude and unprofessional treatment I received from Deputy Marshal Jennifer Harkins when I attempted to politely follow up with her about the matter. In your response, you stated that you will be contacting me “shortly with a formal response in this matter”. Thank you very much for your quick and professional reply.
As it has now been 35 business days since your communication to me, and 62 business days since I filed my original complaint with L/CSO Juan Prieve, I am writing to respectfully inquire if your investigation has ended, what findings have been reached and what retraining or sanctions, if any, have been deemed appropriate.
I greatly appreciate your time and attention in assisting with this matter. For your convenience, I have enclosed copies of my letter to you, as well as your response.
Sincerely,
Douglas J. Hester
Cc: U.S. Attorney Diane J. Humetewa
Enclosures:
Letter to Marshal David Gonzales dated 5/13/09
Response from Marshal Gonzales dated 5/18/09
We think that we've allowed a quite reasonable interval for this matter to be fully investigated, and we look forward to learning in the near future just how Marshal Gonzales plans to resolve our complaint.
(A side note: The clerk at the post office who helped us this morning apparently used to work at another mail facility located quite near to the offices where these letters were posted, and he politely asked us why we were contacting these individuals. When we explained the situation, he looked at us quizzically and asked, "You were taking pictures of the outside of the building? What's wrong with that?"
Why is it that everyone in the country seems to understand that concept, save for Federal Courthouse Security officers and Deputy U.S. Marshals?)
Marshal Gonzales:
I received your letter dated May 18, 2009, acknowledging your intent to review and investigate the circumstances regarding my interaction with Court Security Officers on April 6, 2009, and the subsequent rude and unprofessional treatment I received from Deputy Marshal Jennifer Harkins when I attempted to politely follow up with her about the matter. In your response, you stated that you will be contacting me “shortly with a formal response in this matter”. Thank you very much for your quick and professional reply.
As it has now been 35 business days since your communication to me, and 62 business days since I filed my original complaint with L/CSO Juan Prieve, I am writing to respectfully inquire if your investigation has ended, what findings have been reached and what retraining or sanctions, if any, have been deemed appropriate.
I greatly appreciate your time and attention in assisting with this matter. For your convenience, I have enclosed copies of my letter to you, as well as your response.
Sincerely,
Douglas J. Hester
Cc: U.S. Attorney Diane J. Humetewa
Enclosures:
Letter to Marshal David Gonzales dated 5/13/09
Response from Marshal Gonzales dated 5/18/09
We think that we've allowed a quite reasonable interval for this matter to be fully investigated, and we look forward to learning in the near future just how Marshal Gonzales plans to resolve our complaint.
(A side note: The clerk at the post office who helped us this morning apparently used to work at another mail facility located quite near to the offices where these letters were posted, and he politely asked us why we were contacting these individuals. When we explained the situation, he looked at us quizzically and asked, "You were taking pictures of the outside of the building? What's wrong with that?"
Why is it that everyone in the country seems to understand that concept, save for Federal Courthouse Security officers and Deputy U.S. Marshals?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
