Michelle Malkin » Don’t let the Dems kill the John Doe amendment Update: House Dems kill John Doe amendment…fight moves to the Senate Update: 8:55pm Senate Dems kill John Doe amendment…roll added

Don’t let the Dems kill the John Doe amendment Update: House Dems kill John Doe amendment…fight moves to the Senate Update: 8:55pm Senate Dems kill John Doe amendment…roll added

By Michelle Malkin • July 19, 2007 06:59 PM

7/20 1:25pm update. Video of Rep. Pete King ripping the Dems over their opposition to the John Doe amendment.

7/20 9:30am update. Read Debra Burlingame: “We disarm ourselves when we succumb to political correctness – which encourages us to second guess our common sense and look the other way. It is an outrage that Pelosi and Reid would allow individuals to be punished when they come forward to protect us all.”

If you see something, say something:

Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121
Nancy Pelosi’s office: 202-225-4965
Reid’s office: 202-224-3542

7/20 7:40am update: Andrew McCarthy assails the Death Wish Caucus–the cowardly, reckless, feckless Democrats who want John Doe citizen whistleblowers to shut up or be sued.

Photoshop via Justin Higgins at Right on the Right

9:20pm Eastern update. Here’s the roll on the Senate John Doe protection amendment, which missed the 60-vote threshold by 3 votes. Interesting facts: No Republican voted against it. GOP presidential candidate Sam “Switchback” Brownback didn’t bother to vote. Hillary voted for it. Obama sat it out:

Reader S.M. looks at some of the at-risk ‘08 Dems who voted for the bill (Hillary, Baucus, Landrieu) versus the supposed “maverick” freshmen (who don’t face re-election until 2012) who voted no (Webb, Tester, McCaskill, etc.): “Transparent politics. Kill the measure, but do it in a way that protects the vulnerable incumbents from attack ads.”

Yep.

8:55pm Eastern update. Well, the Senate Dems have spoken. Susan Collins got a vote, but it just failed. Audrey Hudson’s latest update: “The measure failed in a late-night 57-39 vote after some last minute arm-twisting by Democrats, three votes shy of the required (super majority) 60 votes because it was not directly related (germane) to the underlying educational funding bill.”

Bottom line: The Dems believe that if you see something, you should just shut up.

This fight is not over. There still is a final conference report to be hashed out. Keep your phones lit. The Senate Dems need to hear from you.

Stand by for the roll on Collins’ John Doe protection amendment, SA 2340…

6:58 pm Eastern update and bumped. Audrey Hudson reports the Dems have successfully stripped out the John Doe amendment:

Congressional Democrats today failed to include a provision in homeland security legislation that would protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leaders.

“This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists,” said Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Who is responsible? Bryan Preston observes:

[The Dems] scuttled this amendment in committee in a way that makes them difficult to track down individually. That’s sneaky but it’s how Washington often works. Rep. Bennie Thompson is the most likely culprit, but it’s unlikely that he’s flying solo here.

The fight’s not over, as Audrey Hudson notes:

While the conference is not likely to meet again, Mr. King noted the conference report has not been written and says he will continue discussions with Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, to insert the “John Doe” language.

Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican and ranking member of the committee, announced afterward she will attempt to attach a similar bill to an education measure currently under debate on the Senate floor.

Keep calling Nancy Pelosi’s office to protest.

And start hounding your Senators.

Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121
Nancy Pelosi’s office: 202-225-4965

Who is John Doe? I am John Doe. You are John Doe:

2:56pm Eastern update. Audrey Hudson reports…

A Senate Republican aide says they scored one victory when the chamber’s parliamentarian ruled this morning that the “John Doe” protections are within the scope of the legislation and can be included by amendment.

“Combine that with the public outcry and Democrats may be forced to cave,” the aide said.

However, Democrats plan to limit the number of amendments to only three or four and there is no word yet on which amendments will be allowed.

Keep the pressure on.

***

Andy McCarthy and Audrey Hudson report that Democrats are attempting to water down the “John Doe” amendment–the legislation sponsored by Rep. Peter King that would protect citizen whistleblowers who act to protect our national security and who are threatened by lawsuits from CAIR and their grievance-mongering ilk. Time is short. You need to make your voice heard in Congress now.

Hudson writes:

Democrats are trying to pull a provision from a homeland security bill that will protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leadership aides.

The legislation, which moves to a House and Senate conference committee this afternoon, will implement final recommendations from the 911 Commission.

Rep. Pete King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the bill after a group of Muslim imams filed a lawsuit against U.S. Airways and unknown or “John Doe” passengers after they were removed for suspicious behavior aboard Flight 300 from Minneapolis to Phoenix on Nov. 20 before their removal.

“Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement,” Mr. King said in an interview last night.

“This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists,” Mr. King said.

“I don’t see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity,” Mr. King said.

McCarthy sums up why this is so critical: “As Pete King’s office notes, in a post-9/11 reality, passenger vigilance is essential to our security. Given the variety of threats we face and terrorists’ history of targeting mass transit systems, encouraging passengers to report strange behavior to authorities is really just common sense. Failing to report suspicious behavior could end up costing thousands of lives — and while the “flying imams” don’t seem to understand this, the American people do. We must make certain that brave citizens who stand up and say something are given the protections they deserve. The King amendment does exactly that, and Democrats musn’t be allowed to strip it from the 9/11 conference report on a technicality.”

Republicans aides will put up a fight when the conference committee begins at 1 p.m., to reinsert the language, but the public needs to weigh in. We are always told to be vigilant. To “say something” when we “see something.” I see Democrats carrying water for CAIR and endangering national security.

Say something!

Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121
Nancy Pelosi’s office: 202-225-4965

***

Frank Gaffney e-mails:

Fresh from their all-night effort to force surrender on the U.S. military in Iraq, some Democrats on Capitol Hill appear intent on using the dark-of-night (figuratively, if not literally) to another, grievous misdeed: Trying to eliminate one of the most important anti-terror provisions adopted by Congress since 9/11. This legislation is the so-called “King amendment,” which is designed to ensure that public-spirited citizens are not discouraged, let alone penalized, for doing their civic duty by informing the authorities of activities that could be associated with terrorism.

As the brilliant former counterterrorism prosecutor and legal analyst Andy McCarthy observes in a posting on National Review Online today, the King amendment’s opponents in the congressional leadership understand that the overwhelming, bipartisan support for this legislation in the House and Senate leave them few options.

In fact, as a practical matter, the only way they could dispose of a provision which was initiated by the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Pete King of New York, after the insidious Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) brought suit against several “John Does” and adopted by the House of Representatives by a vote of 304-121 would be to snuff it in a conference committee. Word on the Hill is that it could be attempted TODAY.

Such a gambit should be made more difficult by the inclusion of similar language in the Senate version of what has come to be called the “9/11 Bill,” thanks to strong support in that chamber from, among others, Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and his ranking minority member, Susan Collins of Maine. Still, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants are reportedly hoping to use a technicality – the fact that the King amendment was to a railroad security bill rather than the 9/11 bill – to strip it from the conference report. By so doing, the minority of the House that voted against the King amendment and that is made up of most radical left-wing members of their caucus would have the last word, to the delight of their Islamist friends at CAIR.

Making such a point of order would, of course mean that a similar objection could be registered to every other aspect of the railroad legislation – which includes a number of provisions near-and-dear to the hearts of Democrats, as well as Republicans on the conference committee. Unless, that is, no one is paying attention and the dastardly deed can be accomplished behind closed doors and out of the glare the public’s eye.

Thanks to Andy McCarthy for raising the alarm. Every one of us who understands the indispensable role alert private citizens can – and must – play in protecting the American people from future terrorist attacks should immediately contact Speaker Pelosi’s office (202-225-4965), their own congressional representatives and their favorite talk radio show hosts and bloggers. The message should be clear: Enact the King amendment – because our lives, literally, depend upon it.

Posted in: John Doe

Printer Friendly

comments (193)

trackbacks (77)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#107010

On July 20th, 2007 at 9:47 am, Phil said:

We’re at war, right?

trea•son [ trz'n ] (plural trea•sons)

noun

Definition:

1. betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy.

(Encarta)
#107023

On July 20th, 2007 at 9:58 am, planetgeo said:

This is absolutely unbelievable. The Democrats are no longer just against our military, they’re now actively fighting against US! They want to make it easier for our enemies to intimidate us here at home and to suppress all our attempts to defend ourselves against these deranged killers.

Why are these Democrats not being arrested for openly subversive acts? They have joined with our enemies against us.
#107033

On July 20th, 2007 at 10:06 am, Yashmak said:

But how do you protect Arabic people in general from getting on a plane and instantaneously being reported as “suspicious” to authorities by a random stranger who doesn’t trust “those type of people” on the same plane as them? (I have heard this quote exactly.) This is the racial profiling that is trying to be protected against.

DarkKnight

Well, what are we doing now? Thousands of Muslims and middle-easterners fly on our airlines now, without being ‘instantaneously reported’. What you’re saying, is that the Dems killed this ammendment to protect people from profiling that by-and-large isn’t really happening. Obviously, American passengers understand what is, and what isn’t, suspicious behavior for the most part.
#107076

On July 20th, 2007 at 10:50 am, Yashmak said:

Yes, but as I said before, reporting something to a law enforcement official is already protected speech, that is 100% immmunity from civil suits. I cannot be sued if I said say “MM stole my wallet.” I may be prosectued for perjury but MM could not sue me.

But wait, you’re wrong again MikeB! The flying imams DID sue the passengers of the airline for reporting the suspicious activity. Maybe you haven’t been paying attention. . .because there have been numerous reports about it on this very site. So much for your assertion that it can’t happen.
#107085

On July 20th, 2007 at 11:06 am, MikeB said:

YOU’RE ALL WRONG! I AM A LAWYER. MM could not sue me for slander for saying she committed a crime to law enforcement officials. She could sue me for slander if I said it to someone else, but what you say to law enforcement officials has absolute immunity. Yes, the Immams brought suit, but the suit would be dismissed because of absolute immunity.
#107087

On July 20th, 2007 at 11:08 am, MikeB said:

Conservative Cat, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. It doesn’t matter if I am acting in good faith or bad, whatever I say to law enforcement is protected. The reason is that there is a public interest in open dialogue with law enforcement.
#107089

On July 20th, 2007 at 11:10 am, englishqueen01 said:

This is the letter I sent to my respective Senators. Please feel free to copy and use is as needed:

I am writing to question why you voted against the “John Doe” Amendment. As an American concerned about my safety and the safety of my family, friends, and fellow citizens, I feel it is my duty to watch for and report suspicious behavior that could be related to terrorism.

The “John Doe” Amendment would protect me and my fellow citizens from potentially crippling lawsuits brought about by CAIR, the ACLU and other terrorist-backing organizations.

Your vote against the “John Doe” Amendment shows me, as a citizen of both your state and America the following:

1.You do not care about my own, or my family’s, safety.

2.You do not care about protecting innocent American citizens from lawsuits that could cause them financial hardship.

3.You do not care if there is another terrorist attack in America, or if that attack costs thousands of American lives, because your opposition to the “John Doe” Amendment opens the door to allow people (i.e. terrorists) to bully American citizens into not reporting suspicious behavior.

It does show, however, that you DO care more about appeasing groups like CAIR, the ACLU, and Muslims by allowing them to sue people who report suspicious activity (here, the activity of the “Flying Imams” comes to mind).

I thank you in advance, Senators Feingold and Kohl, for supporting terrorism. When the next terrorist attack happens on American soil, please be prepared to explain why you opposed legislation that would allow such an attack to happen. I, personally, will hold you responsible for EACH and EVERY American death caused by terrorism on American soil.
#107092

On July 20th, 2007 at 11:15 am, englishqueen01 said:

@ MikeB:

Yes, the Immams brought suit, but the suit would be dismissed because of absolute immunity

All it takes is one vicious lawyer, one progressive judge, and the “absolute immunity” would be null and void.

CAIR and the ACLU would make sure of that.

And if the immunity is absolute, then enacting the John Doe amendment would just be reinforcing existing laws.

As for me, lan astaslem. I will not submit, I will not surrender. Sue me.
#107100

On July 20th, 2007 at 11:27 am, DesertLover said:

MikeB … you are in error on your “facts” about the “Flying Imams” … the “John Does” reported the concerns to the airline flight crew and they got the TSA and other law enforcement involved … so by your own description of immunity the “John Doe” passengers do not qualify as they did not report their concerns to law enforcement …
#107115

On July 20th, 2007 at 11:52 am, steveegg said:

Damn the lawyers; full Doe ahead!
#107118

On July 20th, 2007 at 11:55 am, WisCon said:

From Russ Feingold’s office:

“The bill is too ambiguous and too complex blah blah blah.”

So that’s why he voted against it, because it’s too complex?

“He is preparing a statement right now and I can send it to you.”

Gee, thanks.
#107126

On July 20th, 2007 at 12:00 pm, DesertLover said:

#160

“The Bill”? … “Too Complex”? … they passed the “Bill” … this was an amendment of less than 100 words that they removed …

typical Dem-Speak for _______ you
#107130

On July 20th, 2007 at 12:06 pm, MikeB said:

I think I need to clarify: Any idiot can go to court and file papers (usually a summons and complaint) and someone is “sued.” A clerk receiving the papers is not going to read the papers and say “oh wait, you can’t bring this case.” But, whomever is sued can make a motion to dismiss. The “John Doe” Act would not ab initio change that procedure.
#107142

On July 20th, 2007 at 12:24 pm, steveegg said:

WisCon, if you do get that statement out of Feingold, I’ll take a copy.
#107147

On July 20th, 2007 at 12:27 pm, blacktygrrrr said:

I honestly do not know the answer to the question I am about to ask. Have the presidential candidates been asked their position on the John Doe amendment by anybody? Somebody needs to find out where the democratic candidates stand. It could be a good issue for republicans in 2008. The so called party of the people is still the party of the trial lawyers.

This is a national security issue, and I hope the republican candidates pounce on this with the ferocity of 10 fired up Malkins.

http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/06/02/colonel-david-hunt-the-jfk-plot-they-still-just-dont-get-it/

eric

http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com
#107152

On July 20th, 2007 at 12:32 pm, DesertLover said:

blacktygrrrr

Michelle posted the roll call of how they all voted … all Dem candidates voted against it except Obama who didn’t vote at all …
#107164

On July 20th, 2007 at 12:44 pm, steveegg said:

DesertLover, blacktygrrrr – Actually, Hillary Clinton voted for the amendment. As for the Republicans, if memory serves (because I can’t recall the original House roll at the moment), all those in Congress voted for except the absent Brownback.
#107166

On July 20th, 2007 at 12:50 pm, englishqueen01 said:

MikeB:

What about my point re: activist judges and vicious lawyers, coupled with CAIR and the ACLU?

Look at the $54 million pants suit brought by that judge. It’s frivolous, unwarranted, and was thrown out.

The owners of the dry cleaner – as MM pointed out – are already out their savings and an additional $100k for a lawsuit that has received no judgment.

Don’t think for one second CAIR, ACLU, and lawyers for said groups and clients wouldn’t drag out suits until families were broke and bankrupt.
#107167

On July 20th, 2007 at 12:50 pm, blacktygrrrr said:

No no, not the congressional roll call. Has anyone in the media asked the Presidential candidates how they would vote on it if they could?

I want somebody to confront John Edwards with it, and I want to make sure Guliani, McCain, Romney and Fred Thompson are all in favor of it. I would be shocke dif they were not, but the media should still ask the appropriate questions…oh wait, it’s the media…never mind.

eric
#107168

On July 20th, 2007 at 12:51 pm, DesertLover said:

Steveegg … I was just typing a correction as I went and checked … but then Hill knew it was a safe vote because they were not going to get the 60 votes to keep it in … yes … Brownback did not cast a vote … nor did 3 Dems … one of which of course is Johnson from SD who is not currently able to perform his senatorial duties … and who they are fighting hard to not allow to be replaced for fear the governor of SD will put a Republican in his place … but Obama also did not vote
#107169

On July 20th, 2007 at 12:52 pm, DesertLover said:

blacktygrrrr

good question and sorry I misunderstood what you were asking … I too would like to hear those answers from all of those running for POTUS from all sides
#107171

On July 20th, 2007 at 12:56 pm, DesertLover said:

englishqueen01

I say it is no different than a citizen trying to take on any other person or company (like insurance as an example) that has massive amounts of money for legal matters … draw it out long enough and the citizen ends up giving up … not because they changed their mind … but because they can no longer pay the lawyers and court costs to continue … Justice may be blind … but the need for money to pursue it to a proper end is not
#107172

On July 20th, 2007 at 12:57 pm, Yashmak said:

YOU’RE ALL WRONG! I AM A LAWYER.

Hey, you’re the one who said that they couldn’t sue. They did.

So who is wrong?
#107174

On July 20th, 2007 at 12:58 pm, Speakup said:

Passengers Sued Over Imams’ Removal
Mar 30 02:26 PM US/Eastern
By PATRICK CONDON
Associated Press Writer

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) – Six Muslim men removed from a plane last fall after being accused of suspicious behavior are suing not only the airline but the passengers who complained—a move some fear could discourage travelers from speaking up when they see something unusual.

The civil rights lawsuit, filed earlier this month, has so alarmed some lawyers that they are offering to defend the unnamed “John Doe” passengers free of charge. They say it is vital that the flying public be able to report suspicious behavior without fear of being dragged into court.

“When you drive up the road towards the airport, there’s a big road sign that says, `Report suspicious behavior,’” said Gerry Nolting, a Minneapolis lawyer. “There’s no disclaimer that adds, `But beware if you do that, you might get sued.’”

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O6LD6G0&show_article=1&catnum=0

Civil actions are completely and wholly separate from criminal prosecutions and the only protected speech is that which is by the victims.

We live in a society that has been taken over by the courts.

The ability to sue anybody, anytime for any reason has created a climate of fear that stifles the normal function of every day life and truly paralyzes the innovation that America depends on to be exceptional in the world marketplace.

For Muslims and any other entity looking for another tool to use against America the courts are a perfect fit.
#107185

On July 20th, 2007 at 1:10 pm, DesertLover said:

Speakup

Guess this means they will have to either put the disclaimer on those signs at all the airports or else take them down completely …
#107188

On July 20th, 2007 at 1:11 pm, almeehan said:

“I’m a lawyer!” That was all I needed to know. We are all in good hands now. s/
#107191

On July 20th, 2007 at 1:16 pm, feralcat said:

Michelle Malkin “Read Debra Burlingame: … … … If you see something, say something”

Not me! I am keeping my mouth shut from now on!

Do you think that I want to get sued for everything that I have got, and then some, and end up living in an alley eating dog food?

No thanks.
#107202

On July 20th, 2007 at 1:24 pm, feralcat said:

DesertLover said:

MikeB … you are in error on your “facts” about the “Flying Imams” … the “John Does” reported the concerns to the airline flight crew and they got the TSA and other law enforcement involved … so by your own description of immunity the “John Doe” passengers do not qualify as they did not report their concerns to law enforcement

You beat me to it!

Early cat gets the mouse.
#107204

On July 20th, 2007 at 1:27 pm, DesertLover said:

feralcat

Just trying to help out … after all … now we KNOW he is a LAWYER … he said so …

besides … I can’t have a “cat” having to eat “dog” food …
#107248

On July 20th, 2007 at 2:05 pm, 3Steps said:

wow.. I never thought I’d see MikeB in this position. I think he actually BELIEVES what he is saying this time.

MikeB. You need to look beyond what you KNOW as a lawyer. Look to what is Politically Correct and what is happening acrossed the world, not just this country. I believe that technically you are correct. But this isn’t about what’s legal now. It’s about what they are hoping to accomplish in the courtroom.

I don’t know the ‘political affilation’ of the judge involved with the flying inmans. Nor do I care. But they didn’t throw it out. I agree with you totally. It’s stupid. It should have been thrown out. It should have been an obvious ‘immunity’ situation. But we are once again moving into the realm where the courts are setting the laws by their decisions and not the legislatures. And that very act right there makes us all vunerable. Not just to terrorism but to ANY act of crime.

I see two asian men shoot down someone in the grocery store parking lot. I run in and tell the management who calls the authorities. Turns out that the guy I saw shot started it. And the asians guys were defending themselves and got scared and ran. Ok. My bad I only saw half the story. Seems straight forward right? Wrong. Politically Incorrect. If I was asian and the grocery store manager was asian then we are good. But since I am white and the grocery store manager is latino we are now both in danger of being sued because we are racist.

I can hear you saying that is just stupid. They can’t do that. Well, legally, right now, they aren’t SUPPOSED to be able to do that right? But since the Flying Inmans case has not been thrown out that opens up the door for all of those cases. And until such time as it is either ‘thrown out’ or heaven forbid they actually win. Then the whole concept of immunity is up in the air.

You are a lawyer.. you should know lawyers will throw out ‘trial ballons’ all the time. I was just reading in the case where they are suing the TB lawyer.. one of the plantiffs wasn’t even on the flight and was never breathing the same air as TB Andy.. but is roommate to someone who did. The lawyer admits that it hasn’t been tried before but given the ever changing nature of the law that they are going to go for it anyway.

You need to look beyond what you know the law to be to what they are trying to make it to be via manipulation of the court system. That’s what the John Doe amendment was all about. Trying to stop what everyone can see happening before it become law via court judgement.

A bit Tin Foil Hat? Perhaps. But I think we should be entitled to our concerns too.
#107250

On July 20th, 2007 at 2:13 pm, BluegrassHindu said:

On July 20th, 2007 at 11:08 am, MikeB said:
Conservative Cat, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. It doesn’t matter if I am acting in good faith or bad, whatever I say to law enforcement is protected. The reason is that there is a public interest in open dialogue with law enforcement.

100% incorrect.
You can be brought to cival court for Malicious Prosecution and you can face criminal action for perjury and/or filing a false report. Just a FYI
#107272

On July 20th, 2007 at 2:54 pm, MikeB said:

Ok, ok, ok, I stand corrected on one point, the John Does reported their concerns to the Airline not officials of the government. But, even in that case, the Imam’s case would be thrown out, because they were not malicious. Some of you made the point about a crazy liberal judge may allow the case to go forward, that is correct. But, the “John Doe Law” would not change anything. That same liberal judge would say that the person reporting irregular activities was acting in bad faith. Again, the law does not have any real impact.

Again, as I said anyone and everyone has the power to bring a friviolous lawsuit (until it is dismissed). The only way to change that is by having the British system of loser pays winner’s costs and attorney’s fees. So far, Americans don’t want that.
#107276

On July 20th, 2007 at 2:57 pm, MikeB said:

Blue Grass, I said you can be prosecuted for perjury, we agree. A malicious prosecution case can only be brought against a prosecutor where plaintiff would have to prove that there was no probable cause in the first instance for bringing the case. Again, that has nothing to do with a lawsuit against a private person making a false report against another private person.
#107282

On July 20th, 2007 at 3:07 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

Just a note to remind us all why, after all the phone calls / faxes / emails we send to Congress, they still vote the way they do on stuff like this:

From “TheCapitolist” website forum for congressional staffers -

A staff member posted:

“Are you surprised that so many constituents believe we are a direct democracy rather than a republic? They call and call and call bitching and moaning about the fact that a MOC didn’t vote the way (in their opinion) the majority of constituents wanted them to. I’ve tried to explain this to a few and it never goes well. They actually believe that a MOC is supposed to vote the will of the people and not express their own opinions.
Honestly, I want to work with someone on their last day who is really pissed …
…I want to hear them take that last phone call and tell the constituent to f*#& off! That would be such a wonderful day.”

The arrogance extends down to the low-level staffers – wonder where they get it from?
#107286

On July 20th, 2007 at 3:11 pm, BluegrassHindu said:

MikeB said: A malicious prosecution case can only be brought against a prosecutor where plaintiff would have to prove that there was no probable cause in the first instance for bringing the case.

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION – An intentional tort arising from the institution or instigation of unjustifiable and unreasonable civil or criminal litigation. An action for malicious prosecution can be brought against the underlying case’s plaintiff, plaintiff’s counsel and/or advisors.
#107288

On July 20th, 2007 at 3:16 pm, feralcat said:

John and Jane Doe needed this law. America needed this law.

The chances of another successful Islamic terrorist attack have just gone up.

If people reporting suspicious activity are sued, even if unsuccessfully, they will still have a boat load of lawyer costs to pay. Plus they will be called racists and bigots and all manner of things pre court and in court. All that will be enough to deter a lot of people from reporting suspicious activity.

And even if the case should be thrown out, there is by no means any guarantee that it will be. Think McDonald’s and the hot coffee.
#107293

On July 20th, 2007 at 3:29 pm, BluegrassHindu said:

MikeB said:The only way to change that is by having the British system of loser pays winner’s costs and attorney’s fees. So far, Americans don’t want that.

I would wager that most Americans want that type of system, it is the Ambulance chasers and politicos that don`t.
#107306

On July 20th, 2007 at 4:02 pm, DesertLover said:

feralcat

as far as I am concerned all the cigarette lawsuits fall in the same bucket … holding the tobacco company responsible for someone eventually getting health problems after making the decision to smoke is pure crap
(PC) … I m a non-smoker … but I am not offended by those that do …
#107325

On July 20th, 2007 at 4:57 pm, gayle said:

They seem to want to control who smokes legal cigarettes/cigars. Smokers are becoming the outcast of society but not terrorists. Seems illegals and those of the Islamic faith have more rights.

Yet they do not want us to watch and report suspicious activities that could threaten our country.

Makes sense only to a traitor.
#107398

On July 21st, 2007 at 12:45 am, Ombre Rose said:

I would imagine that now, Americans will begin to think, if they see or hear something suspicious that might endanger Congressmen or Judiciary who are fighting so hard to destroy our defenses, that they might follow the commanded protocol of the PC DIMS, and simply choose to “SEE NO, HEAR NO, SPEAK NO EVIL” – go back inside, close the burglar bars and drapes, and turn the TV up extra loud. Just let the police handle the clean-up.

Shades of “The Masque of The Red Death”!
#107400

On July 21st, 2007 at 12:52 am, Ombre Rose said:

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION – An intentional tort arising from the institution or instigation of unjustifiable and unreasonable civil or criminal litigation. An action for malicious prosecution can be brought against the underlying case’s plaintiff, plaintiff’s counsel and/or advisors.

And this would help Ramos and Compean, right now, HOW???
#107478

On July 21st, 2007 at 2:38 pm, ammonrae said:

You know how I feel about homeland security. I can’t stand it. It turns America into a prison gird…..come on Michelle.
#107624

On July 22nd, 2007 at 10:15 am, ajmontana said:

ammonrae, Whatever you’re smokin must be some strong stuff.
#107906

On July 23rd, 2007 at 1:51 pm, ammonrae said:

Ajmontana, here is the deal. If America becomes hardline dictorial, I can’t oppose it. As a Christian, especially a baptized one, I must submit to it.