Disabled AF Sergeant Tased & Assaulted By Feds , Suit Alleges

Disabled Ex-Air Force Sergeant Says Federal Security Officers Tased Him At Downtown Portland Office

 

 

 

 

” A former U.S. Air Force sergeant is suing the federal government and four federal officers for allegedly tasing him several times and striking him in the head and back as he tried to go through security at a downtown Portland office for an appointment.

  William Bayes, 47, was wearing a brace on each knee and using a cane at the time of the alleged December 2012 assault by four Federal Protective Service officers, the federal lawsuit states. Bayes, who suffers from service-related post-traumatic stress disorder, had an appointment that day with the Disabled American Veterans office in the building at Southwest First Avenue and Southwest Main Street, according to the complaint.

  The problems started when Bayes arrived at the Disabled Veterans’ second-floor office, which is housed within the regional office of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The following account comes from the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Portland.

 

Read the details of the assault and the lawsuit at The Oregonian

 

 

 

 

 

 

—

Who Knew Protecting The Border Was “Racist” ? Only In Obamaworld

Obama Judge: Mexican Border Fence May Have “Disparate Impact” On Minorities

 

 

 

 

” A Homeland Security initiative to put fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border could discriminate against minorities, according to an Obama-appointed federal judge who’s ruled that the congressionally-approved project may have a “disparate impact on lower-income minority communities.”

  This of course means that protecting the porous—and increasingly violent—southern border is politically incorrect. At least that’s what the public college professor at the center of the case is working to prove and this month she got help from a sympathetic federal judge. Denise Gilman, a clinical professor at the taxpayer-funded University of Texas-Austin, is researching the “human rights impact” of erecting a barrier to protect the U.S. from terrorists, illegal immigrants, drug traffickers and other serious threats.

  The professor sued in federal court arguing that the public interest in how the fence will impact landowners outweighed any privacy concerns. The data will allow the public to analyze whether the government is treating property owners equally and fairly or whether the wall is being built in such a way that it disadvantages “minority property owners,” according to the professor. It will also help the public understand the actual dimensions of the wall and decisions related to where it’s placed.

  Judge Beryl Howell, appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by President Obama in 2010, agreed that the public interest is significant. Her 37-page ruling also seems to indicate that she bought the discrimination argument. “Revealing the identities of landowners in the wall’s planned construction site may shed light on the impact on indigenous communities, the disparate impact on lower-income minority communities, and the practices of private contractors,” Howell wrote.”

 

Judicial Watch has the story

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—

Another Slap At Obama And Statism … Judge Rules Against Executive Privilege Claims

Court Rejects Obama Admin Executive Privilege Arguments

 

 

 

” A federal judge Tuesday rejected the Obama administration’s sweeping claims of executive privilege and ordered the disclosure of a foreign aid directive signed by President Barack Obama in 2010 but never publicly released.

  U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle ruled the presidential order is not within the bounds of executive privilege and called the government’s arguments in favor of secrecy “troubling.”

“The government appears to adopt the cavalier attitude that the President should be permitted to convey orders throughout the Executive Branch without public oversight … to engage in what is in effect governance by ‘secret law,’” Huvelle said. “

 

 

     This ruling goes nicely with the previous finding by Judge Richard Leon earlier in the week regarding the unconstitutionality of the NSA spying program . Finally our resident “Constitutional Scholar” is getting a well-deserved lesson on the Constitution .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—

Snowden Vindicated : NSA’s PRISM Program Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal District Judge

NSA Phone Spying Program Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Judge

 

 

” A federal judge ruled on Monday that the National Security Agency’s PRISM program, which collects telephone records and metadata and was revealed this summer by whistleblower Edward Snowden, could be unconstitutional.

  U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon, appointed by George W. Bush, ruled that PRISM likely violates the Fourth Amendment’s ban of unreasonable search and seizure. Leon argued that the NSA’s widespread collection of telephone calls made in or to the United States represents an “arbitrary invasion” of the lives of its own private citizens. He also said that the Justice Department has done little to demonstrate that these information-collection efforts actually prevent future terrorist acts. “

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—

Libertarians Win Big Ballot Access Victory In Tennessee

Libertarians Win Historic Court Case Putting Partisan LP Tennessee Candidates On Ballot

 

 

 

 

” Represented by Oklahoma Libertarian attorney Jim Linger, the Tennessee Libertarian Party (LPTN) and state chair Jim Tomasik won their case for ballot access in federal court on Oct. 31.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee ordered election officials to list Tomasik as a Libertarian on the ballot for the Nov. 21 special election for state house, rather than as an independent.

Federal Judge William J. Haynes had already ruled provisions of Tennessee’s ballot access law unconstitutional in February 2012 in response to a joint suit by the Green Party and Constitution Party, a decision that the state is appealing.

The law put Democratic and Republican candidates on the ballot automatically, while minor-party candidates were required to meet standards set so high that they were effectively forced to run as independents.

To gain state ballot access, third parties were required to submit roughly 40,000 signatures, all gathered by members of their own party and within tight deadlines. Tomasik maintains that even the majority parties would not be able to satisfy such prohibitive requirements.”

 

Read more

 

 

 

 

 

 

—

Paula Deen Fights Against Discrimination Suit

Paula Deen Using Supreme Court’s Prop 8 Ruling To Get Discrimination Suit Dismissed

 

 

 

” It won’t bring back her canned Food Network show, lost endorsements, book deals and merchandising sales, or her reputation in many circles. But Paula Deen today pushed to have dismissed part of a racial discrimination lawsuit — the one in which she confessed to using the N-word in a deposition. The fallout once the deposition became public has quickly led to the collapse of Deen’s cooking empire. The TV chef, who admitted to using the racial slur in the past, is employing the Supreme Court’s recent Prop 8 ruling in her efforts: Today, the defendants filed paperwork (read it here) in U.S. District Court in Georgia citing SCOTUS’ ruling June 26 that essentially struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s anti-same-sex marriage Prop. 8. Deen’s former restaurant employee Lisa Jackson brought the original suit against the chef; although white, Jackson has bi-racial nieces.

On Tuesday, lawyers for Deen, her brother Earl Hiers and their co-owned Uncle Bubba’s Seafood and Oyster House sought sanctions (read it here) against Jackson claiming she had no right to claim racial discrimination. “Jackson cannot enforce someone else’s right, and she has no actionable claim for feeling ‘uncomfortable’ around discriminatory conduct directed at others,” the June 25 motion said.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

—