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
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.
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.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
“Terror on the tarmac”
November 20, 2007 11:00 AM by Michelle Malkin
100 Comments
9/10 people vs. 9/12 people
September 12, 2007 02:26 PM by Michelle Malkin
69 Comments
“Passenger Arrested After Trying to Open Door During Flight” Update: Another incident
August 26, 2007 11:48 AM by Michelle Malkin
35 Comments
Breaking: (F)lying imams finally dismiss John Does from lawsuit
August 22, 2007 02:59 PM by Michelle Malkin
25 Comments
Seattle P-I: No, we won’t help the FBI…we’ll hold a haiku contest instead! Update: FBI flooded with tips Update: Seattle P-I admits haiku contest was bone-headed idea
August 22, 2007 09:31 AM by Michelle Malkin
75 Comments
Attention, John Does: Have you seen these men?
August 21, 2007 06:00 AM by Michelle Malkin
123 Comments
Attention, (F)lying Imams: Put up or shut up
August 14, 2007 10:19 AM by Michelle Malkin
24 Comments
Categories: John Doe
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dRedstate
» Media MattersHot Air
» National Review to Newt: Get outAmSpecBlog
» Explosion Near Israeli Embassy in India
Rep. Pet King was cautiously optimistic around 5pm this afternoon. He mentioned that the Dems were getting a lot of heated phone calls, and he thought that was helping. So, it sounds like people tried; sadly, it was probably only Republicans calling.
CAIR wins another one … DEMO-CRAPS SUCK
I agree with #102. Time to look into all the money CAIR paid to get this killed.
Pete King was just on Mark Levin’s radio show. He says we have to keep the pressure on, particularly on these three people:
Pelosi, Reid, and Van Hollen
“Failed to include”? That’s nice packaging.
Here’s the contact info:
Pelosi:
Office: 202-225-4965
Fax: 202-225-8259
Email: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
Van Hollen:
Office: 202-225-5341
Fax: 202-225-0375
Email: http://vanhollen.house.gov/HoR/MD08/Contact+Information/Web+Contact/
Reid:
Office: 202-224-3542
Fax: 202-224-7327
Email: http://reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm
Sorry to see we lost this round now on to round 2 in the Senate. Time to write Crapo and Craig (he may not get it on immigration, but he is strong on the war effort and the threat of Islamist).
#66 blacktygrrrr got it right. The Dems had no choice but to kill it. The loss of business to their litigating shyster donors would cause a significant drop in campaign contibutions.
Why doesn’t Mark Levin appear often on FOX NEWS?
I just adore this man!!!!!!!!
Sorry to get off topic, but he’s brilliant and to the point.
Do you feel like we have to babysit Democrats?
They are paid royally to get the job done and from my observations, all I see them do is have sleepovers.
Mike B:
“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.”
I’m not a lawyer but this is basic: if it was untrue, she could sue you for slander and/or libel, depending on in what medium you made your statement. And if it could proved that you likely did it for malicious reasons (for instance, if you were a determined hard-left poster who has demonstrated distain for Michelle and her “followers” as you have done so many times here) the amount won by Michelle against you for restitution and damages could be quite large a large sum indeed by any standard.
If someone can make it seem as though someone else was reporting them for prejudiced reasons, the same result could wind up being manifest, whether the person who hypothetically stole the wallet committed the crime or not. That is what this is all about. The amendment is about allowing people to function reasonably out of concern for the rule of law, not be left quaking in their boots for fear of some politically correct lawsuit against them from some scummy lawyer or the ACLU, which is a collection of scummy lawyers.
A little information is a dangerous thing. Check your facts. It seems silly to say this to a pro-active liberal because people who check their facts usually wind up being conservative, but give it the old college try and check your facts anyway, Mike.
sounds like “aid and comfort to the enemy” to me…AND there are more than 2 witnesses to the same overt acts…
gippergirl – “sounds like “aid and comfort to the enemy” to me…AND there are more than 2 witnesses to the same overt acts…”
There is no such thing as treason, or being prosecuted for it anyway, in
America anymore.
Not since Jane Fonda sat on that North Vietnamese gun.
FeralCat, LOL!
The worshipers at the alter of the God of Political Correctness must give frequent sacrifices to their master.
Nothing new, move along.
Ah yes, voted down because it doesn’t have anything to do with education. If the kids get blown up because someone was too scared to report the slightly suspicious thing they saw, wouldn’t that directly affect their education?
How, in the name of God could anyone vote against this? Even a scared libtard senator would notify the flight crew if they saw these muslim idiots acting like…well…muslim idiots. Who the hell are they pleasing here? The few muslims in our great country who would happily cut off their heads too? This is officially out of control.
feralcat you make a good point, but my history is a little fuzzy…did cronkite begin his long and illustrious career w/cbs before or after jane came out as commie?
If I see suspicious package or people near a Democrat’s office, I surely wouldn’t report it. That’s their constituency!
Otherwise, I’m reporting it. Lawyers I’ll live with; terrorism I can’t.
Yet another new low for Democrats. I would love to see a mike shoved in the face of these Dems and have them asked to explain why they won’t protect concerned citizens.
I was glad to see this on Hannity and Colmes. Maybe O’Reilly will cover it tomorrow.
I hope everyone keeps calling.
OK … here we go … for those of you that haven’t read this whole thread … take the time to check out my #14 from this morning … it really does apply to this method the DEMO-CRAPS used to pull this one off …
If this “tactic” of removing something from a bill is legally allowed then why can’t we ever remove the “PORK BARREL SPENDING” they attach to everything … those amendments never have anything to do with the bills involved …
I have been researching “Robert’s Rules of Order” … thus far haven’t found a mention of this particular procedure … nor have I found anything that says there has to be a limit to the number of amendments that can be attached …
Since the DEMO-CRAPS said they were only allowing a finite number of amendments to this bill … where’s their basis in the “Rules of Order” …
Seems we are making up the rules as we go along to satisfy the DEMO-CRAP need of the moment …
Those interested can find the full reference at:
http://www.rulesonline.com/
The Dhimmicrats have screwed us again, bowing to their new masters at CAIR.
greenfairie in #122
agreed … the only positive I see for the future is putting Bela Lugosi Pelosi in a head to toe Bourqah … won’t have to look at her ever again …
The substance of the amendment will become law. It’s just going to take awhile . . . and a whole lot of dead Americans.
obviously the dems don’t care about the 3000 innocent Americans who were killed six years ago…
Trial lawyers and their liberal enablers win again, they soak us and give up part of the proceeds as bribery/extortion money to keep their symbiotic members of Congress in office.
Just another fantastic example of how liberalism is sucking our blood and de structing the US.
Let me see if I have this straight now.
If I see some suspicious activity around DNC headquarters, like something that looks like someone may be planting a bomb, I should keep on walking and keep my mouth shut?
Yup, sounds like that’s what it means.
Why should when you walk by be any different?
OK, you probably thought that you got me there.
How about it being suspicious if there is no suspicious activity going on there?
Wouldn’t that be suspicious?
The bull continues, when will people learn, do not elect attorneys.
This is just another fine example of attorney protectionism. They want the lawsuits, keeps them in business, it is not a matter of winning or losing, it is a matter of getting paid. And we, the voters, continue to pay and pay and pay and pay…
LOL not if it’s another back room deal.
Of course that precludes cigar smoke.
On July 19th, 2007 at 2:02 pm, DesertLover said:
Mr_Conservative_Cat in #63
I feel your pain … but rather than having you pissed off I would like tomeone to tell me what it is going to take to piss off these idiot DEMO-CRAPS to the point they will understand what is going on in this world … guess until one of them is actually directly affected by something terrorist things will not change …
If it were only that simple. I honestly think the survivors would love it, or at least jump on it opportunistically. They could cry alligator tears for the dead whose chairmanships they would take over, blame Bush for not doing enough here and too much there and blame the US for “creating the problem by avoiding diplomacy” (like the psychotic murderers who cut off the heads of hostages and parade them on TV in the name of Allah are going to sit down for afternoon tea).
I know I’m a broken record on this, but so much of what we hate in Washington really does lead down the same road: left wing media control. Qualify it, you ask? Okay, a very simple mental exersize: what would public reaction be if this was something the Democrats wanted and the Republicans voted it down? It would be on the front page of ever newspaper and leading the nightly news on all three networks. That isn’t the problem, of course – if Republicans did that then they would deserve to be called out, as we ourselves did here on immigration. The problem is the Democrats are never called on these things by the MSM – and they know it and so they don’t care.
Sound too simple?
It isn’t.
If you knew that a tiny well-informed minority who would never vote for you and you would never associate with made hay about something you wanted to do but everyone else would cover you and you’d likely win next term’s election, would you hestitate to do whatever it was? Not if you believed in it, regardless of the logic.
That’s our country. That’s what’s happening now. And until we can win back some portion of the MSM, we’re in deep trouble. Do you think the likes of Pelosi and Reid could have held their positions of authority 20 years ago? Of course not.
This is why, boys and girls, we should make whatever noise we can. Over and over I try to tell everyone who will or won’t listen to make noise about the Democrats not debating on Fox – snubbing the world’s most-watched news network out of fear. Nobody cares. Until you start making noise where noise matters – like in immigration – we’re basically screwed, because while we now have Fox, the rest of the MSM is tightly woven around the far left’s pink finger.
But there is no outrage about the Dems not debating on Fox, even though that issue is one of the few issues where the right can make decisive inroads back into the MSM – by hammering the left endlessly about it. And make no mistake, until we get back part of the MSM, all our victories, like immigration, will be turned on their heads and spun into anti-conservative propganda in the next election, and we’ll have only Fox to help us, and Fox isn’t enough.
If you’re about to mention talk radio, don’t. Preaching to the converted isn’t enough, either. We have to make inroads, and we have to start making them now.
This is absolutely disgusting. Traitors.
This is absolutely disgusting. Traitors.
When the Dims’ garbage comes home to roost and it is time for them to pay the Piper, it’s going to be too sad for them. For the One Who returns their harvest upon them, filled to overflowing, pressed down, and shaken together, FULL MEASURE – will return to them ONLY WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO OTHERS.
On July 19th, 2007 at 3:11 pm, Brian72 said:
Now Sean Hannity is on it too
I agree. totally.
****************************
YES, it’s EASY to see why we have to debate this – WHO EVER STOOD UP AND BLOCKED THE DIMS FROM THEIR INSANITY???
“DEBATE” just ENCOURAGES them.
Sometimes if you don’t walk the talk, the talk is meaningless – been that way in America for 50 years. They been walkin’ – we been TALKIN’ – PERIOD.
We need more than a toothless roar.
I ain’t saying what that might be – I don’t think a dumpload of cabbages is it, though.
Maybe a bombardment of the airlines folks?????? I know it ain’t their fault, but with the $$$Billions of govt bailouts for that industry, maybe THEY have the govt ear?????
Great comment on this matter that I saw on another web site.
If anyone thinks that we have to wait for millions more Muslims to enter this country before they start exerting substantial influence over the government’s political, social and security policies, they’d better think again.
Just an small, cohesive, concentrated minority of Muslims in a place like Dearborn, Michigan, among others, can exert an influence far beyond anything their numbers would indicate.
Dearborn, for one example, is a Democratic party stronghold, and the National Democratic party organization is going to do whatever it takes to keep it that way. If that means ignoring the Islamic threat to this country, and jeopardizing the lives of American citizens, they’ll do it. The selfish interest’ of elected officials like Keith Ellison, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are all that count. Everything else takes a back seat.
There can be no other explanation for Pelosi’s actions in removing an obvious protection for Americans who report suspicious activities to authorities.
That small, cohesive minority of Muslims are flexing their muscles, and it’s paying big dividends in the halls of Congress.
We desperately need a third part in this country! Period.
- rational
To me this borders on TREASON.
To hate George Bush so much as to not protect us is just to hate all of us.
James Greenidge
Speechless in Queens NY
I just emailed Senator Brown (D-OH) and asked what could compel him to vote against this no-brainer amendment. I can’t agree that these guys are carrying water for the CAIR crowd when there are only about 2000 members in CAIR!
We need to find out what they are REALLY thinking.
Fine, I won’t say a word, instead I will just act and take my chances in court. Better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6. I took a vow a long time ago to protect this country against all enemies foreign and domestic. Sure I was wearing a uniform but the vow remains in tact. No American should die because of intimidation or fear.
Investigate the Demo-Cair connection … show me the money and all will become clear …
Just A Grunt in #141
Count this former Marine in on that … I can assure you that if they came to me and indicated they needed me to take up arms again I would not hesitate to do so … even old vets are better than the young wimps in Congress …
This is why you don’t ever want to vote for Democrats no matter how conservative they pretend to be. Their votes here were a big win for terrorism, and its no wonder terrorists support Democrats.
They have just handed the USA over to the terrorist for their main entree.
Thank you.
TGillian #140:
I agree that it can’t just be CAIR – with such a low # of members…
I think it’s a combination of influences, most likely the strongest being the trial lawyers.
Heaven forbid we take away their bread & butter!
For all the talk from liberals of how GWB has made this country less safe – I’d love to hear their explanation for excluding this piece of legislation.
Oh – and Good Morning to you all!
This vote exposes the social-democrats as the traitors they are. Politically incorrect and anti-democratic; communists.
The Dems take away one of the best tools we have to sniff out terrorist on the ground; US Citizens.
Why leave yourself exposed to the worst creature prowling our court systems that is the civil lawyer? Why tell what you have seen when you could be sued even if your information may be true?
The Liberal Dems and the Powerful Lawyer lobby have back door us once again.
I urge you all to write or call your Senators / Congressmen about this travesty.
I just sent my emails to Reid and my two state Senators.
Here’s the text of my email, if you want some help getting started:
Senator:
I am writing to you to express my disappointment and disbelief that you, and other members of the Democratic Party, would vote to dismiss S.Amdt. 2340 to S.Amdt. 2327 to H.R. 2669 (College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 ), which would protect common citizens from frivolous lawsuits deriving from their diligent reporting of suspicious activity.
It is the duty and responsibility of every American citizen to be vigilant in this new age of terrorism.
I find it completely irresponsible of you and your colleagues to disregard the best interest of your constituents and this country’s security by continuing to allow baseless litigation upon the citizenry of this nation from persons or groups of questionable character and motive such as CAIR and the ACLU.
Can you honestly state that your vote protects American citizens? Can you, in good faith, proclaim that you are looking out for the best interests of American individuals and families when you leave them open to ridiculous accusations of bigotry, racism, libel or slander when their intention is to be honest, vigilant citizens of a society under attack from radical elements?
It is clear that you, and your fellow Democrats in Congress, are deserving of your 14% approval rating.
We’re at war, right?
trea•son [ trz'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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is the letter I sent to my respective Senators. Please feel free to copy and use is as needed:
@ MikeB:
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.
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 …
Damn the lawyers; full Doe ahead!
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.
#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
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.
WisCon, if you do get that statement out of Feingold, I’ll take a copy.
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
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 …
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
Hey, you’re the one who said that they couldn’t sue. They did.
So who is wrong?
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.
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 …
“I’m a lawyer!” That was all I needed to know. We are all in good hands now. s/
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.
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.
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 …
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I would wager that most Americans want that type of system, it is the Ambulance chasers and politicos that don`t.
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 …
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.
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”!
And this would help Ramos and Compean, right now, HOW???
You know how I feel about homeland security. I can’t stand it. It turns America into a prison gird…..come on Michelle.
ammonrae, Whatever you’re smokin must be some strong stuff.
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.