Right Juris

Now we’re talking. In a striking move today, the Secretary of the Senate has refused to seat Roland Burris in the U.S. Senate.

The secretary of the U.S. Senate on Monday rejected the certificiate of appointment for Roland Burris, named by Illinois’ controversial governor to fill Barack Obama’s Senate seat, according to an aide to the secretary.

The aide said Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson rejected Burris’ appointment because it does not conform with the Senate rule requiring that the secretary of state — in this case, Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White — must sign the certificate of appointment along with the governor.

White has declined to sign the certificate, siding with some Senate Democrats who say Burris should not be seated because of the cloud over Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who is accused of trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat.

According to a Democratic source and a Democratic Senate leadership aide, without the signed certificate Burris will be denied access to the Senate floor.

See more in the video below.

In some ways I kind of feel bad for the Burris fellow, except that I don’t really. He’s obviously brought this on himself for the plublicity, after all, who had ever heard of him before he was appointed by the corrupt Democrat (but I repeat myself) governor of Illinois.

The real question in my mind is this; is this move even legal. The requirements of the Constitution to become a senator are that you must be 30, must be a U.S. citizen and you must be a citizen of the state you are representing. The tricky part here is that the Constitution does say that the Senate has the power not to seat a member who is the product of a corrupt Election. This power derives from the clear language of Article 1, Section 5, which gives the Senate to judge:
1. Elections;
2. Qualifications; and
3. Returns

See also Morgan v. United States (1986). However, this is not an election, this is an appointment. The Senate does not have any textual authority to reject a senate appointment according to Art. I or the Morgan case.

There is no doubt that this whole thing smells, but what would smell worse is establishing a precedent of having the Senate seat whomever they will and reject whomever they will. For instance, lets assume (big assumption right now) that Coleman successfully sues and wins the MN senate seat. Could Reid just decide he wasn’t going to seat him because the court case didn’t go the Democrats way? This is a rather scary principle to establish and I don’t think the senate has the power to do this. So, seat this Burris guy, we may not like it, but its probably the right thing to do.

In a couple of Indiana court of appeal’s rulings, the effectiveness of online sting operations that attempt to catch child molesters may have become less effective. Way to go! Read more, see picture and a video below.

The police consider these sting operations to be key in protecting minors from sexual predators. Nonetheless, the appeal of Randy Gibbs, a Shelbyville Indiana man, made impact on this law, on the grounds that there wasn’t an actual victim.

The court ruled 2-1 that the class B felony of “attempted sexual misconduct with a minor” would require an actual victim, not an undercover officer. The dissenting opinion of Judge Melissa S. May was that the conviction should stand. Her reasoning, that the mere fact that the predator couldn’t go through with the crime doesn’t change the attempt.

Read the rest of the article

Mark Jahnke is a former Waunakee High School teacher found guilty of violating a voyeurism law. On Tuesday, an appellate court upheld that conviction on grounds that even people who are nude around others, still have an expectation of privacy. Read more about this case below.

Mark Jahnke, age 45, was found guilty of video taping his girlfriend nude and while having sex with her, without her knowledge or consent. The girlfriend first became suspicious when she noticed a red flashing light in a pile of laundry.

Jahnke’s attorny, Michael Herbert, argued that because the girl was walking around nude in front of his client, that she gave up any expectation of privacy. Therefore, the voyeur law would not apply.

Read More

After serving jail time for almost three years, Sopranos actor Lillo Brancato Jr. was acquitted by a jury on the charges of murder in the second degree. He was convicted of a lesser charge of burglary, which could bring 3 to 15 years in prison. Read more, see photos and see a video below.

Lillo Brancato, and accomplis Steven Armento, broke into an apartment to steal prescription drugs after a night of drinking at a strip club. Daniel Enchautegui, a neighbor and undercover cop, ran over to see what was happening.

Armento shot and killed the officer with his .357 Magnum. The officer shot back, wounding both men. Steve was convicted earlier this year of Murder in the 1st and will serve a life sentence without parol. The officer shot was just 28 years old.

You might also remember Lillo from his role in one of my favorite “mob” movies called A Bronx Tale, directed by Robert Dinero. It is certainly a shame that he got involved in a drug addiction and associated with such low life scum. Seemed like a good kid otherwise.

Considering he had no gun and took no part in the violent action, second degree murder was somewhat a longshot. The policeman shot certainly didn’t deserve such fate, God rest his soul. Likely, they were seeking such a verdict under some kind of felony murder rule. In other words, someone gets killed while you are commencing a felony, you can get charged with murder.

The problem with that theory in this instance is it lacks any kind of mens rea (criminal intent). If he took no part in the violent act, and had no intention of harming anyone, it is highly unlikely he could be convicted of such a high crime. Felony murder is more properly applied in cases of beating or rape or other violent crimes, when someone dies, though intention of murder cannot be proven.

Lillo Brancato Jr. Pictures

A Coleman spokesman stated today that they expect Al Franken to take a lead in the latest count by the Canvassing Board, at least temporarily.

The Canvassing Board made it through more than 100 ballots in its first hour of work, much faster than it awarded ballots on Tuesday and Wednesday. Their work was aided by Republican Norm Coleman’s campaign decision to drop about 400 challenges.

Meanwhile, a Coleman spokesman predicted that Democrat Al Franken would take the lead Thursday for the first time in the recount as many of Coleman’s challenges being dropping would go into Franken’s column. The spokesman, Mark Drake, predicted it would be a “temporary flip” that Coleman would overcome later as other withdrawn challenges are awarded to the candidates.

Coleman entered this week’s phase of the recount with a 188-vote lead, which swelled to 360 after the board spent its first two days handling _ and mostly rejecting _ Franken challenges.

Right now the lead in counted ballots is 188 for Coleman. This is expected to drop, but will probably go back up again for Coleman as these challenges are dealt with. I fully expect Franken to keep challenging they find enough votes to win. How long can we expect this recount to go on? Until the Democrat fraudulently destroys the electoral system finds enough votes to win. How can a state go from a slightly conservative/moderate incumbent to a flaming whack job like Al Franken is beyond me. Good job Minnesota, the rest of us are laughing at you.

So the Senate and Congress has virtually nixed the auto bailout for the time being. However, President Bush has vowed to push on provide funds from the TARP Bailout for the auto industry. The main question that jumps to many minds is, can President Bush actually do this? The TARP legislation authorizes the President to purchase securities in “financial institutions” defined as:

The term “financial institution” means any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the United States Virgin Islands, and having significant operations in the United States, but excluding any central bank of, or institution owned by, a foreign government.

This definition seems to me pretty specific in that it basically limits Paulson to using those funds to bail out certain kinds of industries, specifically those who are involved in the financial industry. While it wouldn’t surprise me to see a court rule in favor of Bush should this happen, the “plain language of the statute” standard seems pretty clear to me here. Auto manufacturers do not seem to fit under this definition. I have no idea who would have standing to bring such a suit. Perhaps a member of Congress could, but it is unlikely. I just wish our “conservative” president would think about this deal a little longer (and then not do it).

Sondra Fortunato, who is a big Giant’s fan, was escorted from the game for wearing a very skimpy Santa Outfit.

“Last Sunday, Sondra, whose niece, Paula, is divorcing Sumner Redstone, arrived at the Meadowlands in a tiara, fishnets, a Santa outfit, a bathing-suit bottom and high-heeled boots. “Nothing was showing,” she insisted. “You couldn’t even see my underwear. I don’t flash!”

She carried a suitcase containing Christmas presents, and held a pair of 11-by-17 signs. One read, “Go Giants.” The other, “Have a No Guns Christmas.”

Then, Sondra was escorted to the security office - “where all the alcoholics and drunks and people ejected from the stadium stay.”

Ms. Fortunato certainly has huge . . . tracks of land and I’m sure the Giants are going to receive some negative PR for this. Although they claim she was removed for their no sign policy (which is crap because I see signs at the Meadowlands all the time) and not for her skimpy outfit.

Just as a reminder, a sporting event ticket is not a contract, it is a license. You are totally at the mercy of the arena and they can remove your for pretty much any reason, so read the back of that ticket carefully.

Here is some video of the lovely Ms. Fortunato:

Las Vegas resident Michael Jacobson applied for a “certificate of permission to perform marriages” from the state of Nevada. That application was rejected because of a Nevada law that requires a religious affiliation to perform weddings, with the exception of judges. Now, the state of Nevada is being threatened with law suits to force the issue. Read more below.

Even though you can get a “shotgun” wedding from someone dressed up like Elvis or Sammy Davis Jr., those people are affiliated with some kind of religious organization, else they cannot perform marriages in Nevada under the current law. A group of atheists even got their group recognized as a religion, so that they could send people to be marriage officiators. That isn’t good enough for Mr. Jacobson.

Michael Jacobson doesn’t think he should have to go through the trouble of affiliating himself with a group to become a marriage officiator. And now he’s prepared to sue over it. Bob Ritter and The American Humanist Association has taken up the case for Mr. Jacobson. They sent a letter to the County Clerk, Sherry Parraguirre, demanding that she was in violation of the constitution in refusing the application.

Parraguirre says she is just upholding the law as it exists, and suggests Jacobson take it up with the legislature. She also pointed out that you must be a “full-fledged minister” else anyone in the state could become a wedding officiator. Wedding officiators in Nevada share the same concern.

Mr. Jacobson is relying on the case of Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) in which Torcaso was denied the position of a notary public because he refused to comply with a Maryland statute requiring an oath be taken that a person believes in God before a person takes a public office. The merits of this case are questionable enough on their own. Taking it further and applying it here is ridiculous. There is no requirement for a belief in God in the Nevada law, nor is there even a requirement for any certain belief at all. It is more of a requirement of affiliation.

The ACLU is also taking issue with the law itself. They say that any “religious” requirement is unconstitutional. It should me noted that most states have a similar requirement. This is one of those cases that has been lingering for some time, but has never really been challenged all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court is not likely to overturn these laws because they don’t require a specific belief or religion. In the Torcaso case, they wanted you to believe in God. That is categorically different. Getting past all the ACLU BS, this really comes down to affiliation. Will the court see a requirement of affiliation as being unconstitutional? I doubt it, but you never know.

A High Court judge ruled that Sir Elton John does not have a case for libel against The Guardian. The case came about over a spoof diary piece, written by Marina Hyde, published in the newspaper. Peter Carter-Ruck and Solicitors represented John. The case has caught the eye of speech commentators, and some are suggesting this ruling creates new legal protections for comedians. Read more about this case, see the excerpt from the Guardian, and photos below.

The ruling certainly does offer protection to writers of satirical composition. This is nothing new. The ruling mirrors similar decisions in the United States Supreme Court, like in the Jerry Falwell vs. Larry Flynt case. Though the decision of the high court was applauded by attorneys and the media alike, some are suggesting that this case is too much like the Falwell case. Media law expert Mark Stephens said: ‘What Tugendhat has done is move us closer to the US system where you can’t get damages for satire and humour, except in the most exceptional cases.’ I’m not so sure that the Brits are so far from where we are anyway.

Sir Elton John will receive no harm to himself, his image, or his vast fortune because some writer makes fun of him. I have nothing against John, but he has completely lost his sense of humor. What a big baby! I’de like to see someone put him in a little schoolboy outfit and video tape him screaming ‘mommy mommy, they are making fun of me!,’ with a little bratty voice.

This is hardly a “new protection for comics.” The real issue here is whether or not the elements of libel are met. In this case, the law would ask whether Hyde made a statement of fact about Sir Elton, whether that statement of fact was false, and whether there were any damages to John as a result of the false statement.

Elton John failed to prove that Hyde’s diary article was a statement of fact. Here, the law would ask how the statement is perceived by the community, given the context. Given the context of the article, no one would think that this was a serious statement of fact, or that this was really the pop star’s diary. Therefore, the elements of libel are not met. Case Closed. Read the fake diary entry for yourself.

Read excerpt and see photos

File this one under “who ever saw this coming” but Boy George was convicted today of chaining a male escort to his bed and beating him. From the article:

Boy George is facing jail after being convicted today of handcuffing a male escort to his bed and beating him with a metal chain as he tried to flee after a naked photo shoot.
…
The pair first met in April last year through a social networking site primarily for gay and bisexual men and even though O’Dowd suspected Mr Carlsen had hacked into his computer they parted on good terms. The singer paid the younger man £300 of the £400 they had agreed.

In the next few weeks they exchanged e-mails in which the singer accused Mr Carlsen of breaking into his computer system but then said that he would be “perfectly happy to see you naked asap”. He referred to Mr Carlsen’s “heavenly butt” and eventually they agreed to meet for a second time.

It was when Mr Carlsen returned to the flat that things took a violent turn.

After calling Mr Carlsen into his bedroom, O’Dowd and another man leapt on him, wrestled him to the floor and started beating him.

He told the court that during the attack O’Dowd was screaming “F****** whore! Now you’re going to get what you deserve”.

I’m not even sure where to begin with this one, but calling the man-whore “heavenly butt” seems like a good place to start. While I think I’m probably more deserving of that nick name, this Carlsen guy seems like quite the catch. Can you imagine being this “escort”, rolling up to the hotel room for another date with Boy George aka George O’Dowd, and suddenly two guys jump you, chain you to the bed and try to take photos of you. There is no way anyone could make this stuff up.

I linked this on Right Pundits one time, but here is the most hilarious video of Boy George trying to convince you to vote for Obama. Hopechangery at its finest.