BluegrassBulletin.com

Petitioners Win Another Round In NKAPC Lawsuit

Overruling Kenton County Clerk Gabrielle Summe's motion for summary judgement, Circuit Judge Greg Bartlett ruled today that the people urging the Clerk to conduct a recount do indeed have standing to challenge the Clerk's actions and has ordered her to reconsider her conclusion that the petition failed.

Based upon the testimony presented at the hearing of September 13, and
based upon the Affidavits filed by the Plaíntiffs in opposition to Summary Judgment, this
Court believes there is cause shown, in the interests of preserving the right of citizens to
petition government, to require the Defendant County Clerk to again review the Petitions
submitted to her in order to determine whether a sufficient number of valid signatures of
registered voters appears thereon.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Defendants' Motíon for Summary Judgment filed on
October 31,2011 is DENIED.
2. That the Defendant, Gabrielle Summe. Kenton County Clerk, shall
reconsider the Petitions presented to her in this matter to determine whether the required number of valid signatures are contained on those Petitions which would allow her to
certify this issue to the Fiscal Court for placement on a ballot.
3. The County Clerk shall report to this Court on or before June 1, 2012
as to the results of her reconsideration of these Petitions.

Stan Chesley Pours Gasoline On Smoldering Fire

Millionaire trial attorney Stan Chesley was tried before the Kentucky Bar Association for unethical conduct and was disbarred.  He appealed that decision to the Kentucky Supreme Court.  Recently his chief prosecutor, Linda Gosnell, was summarily fired by the same bar association. Now Chesley is demanding answers.

Cincinnati lawyer Stan Chesley has asked the Kentucky Supreme Court to delay considering his disbarment for his role in the fen-phen scandal so it can investigate why the Kentucky Bar Association’s chief disciplinary lawyer was fired earlier this month.

In a motion, his lawyers say the abrupt termination of Linda Gosnell on Nov. 19 — coupled with the KBA’s refusal to publicly explain why she was ousted — has resulted in the “understandable inference” that she may have been fired for “prosecutorial misconduct in one or more pending disciplinary cases.” [Courier Journal]

Not only is Chesley looking for answers, but retired Judge Stan Billingsley who runs the huge legal research engine "Lawreader" is taking it a bit farther.  Billingsley tells me that he is getting plenty of information from "insiders" which suggest that the whole lid may blow off of this investigation.

On his site recently he ran this:

LETTER TO:  The Kentucky Bar Association Board of Governors / Supreme Court from Retired Judge Stan Billingsley and former legislator Larry Forgy

RE:  CALL FOR AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION OF THE BAR COUNSEL’S OFFICE AND SUGGESTIONS FOR RULES CHANGES IN THE ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE PROCESS

Chesley's motion is sure to add fuel to this explosive situation.

Judge Orders Litigant To Turn Over Facebook Password

Get  load of this:

The decision is Largent v. Reed (Pa. Common Pleas Nov. 8, 2011), and it involves a discovery request by the defendant in a civil case arising from a car accident. The defendant has filed a Motion to Compel Facebook Login Information in an effort to look through the plaintif’s account for evidence that she was exaggerating her injuries. Judge Walsh grants the request, ruling:

Plaintiff . . . must turn over her Facebook login information to Defense counsel within 14 days of the date of the attached Order. Defense counsel is allotted a 21-day window in which to inspect [Plaintiff]’s profile. After the window closes, Plaintiff may change her password to prevent any further access to her account by Defense counsel.

Privacy takes another hit.  READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

***BREAKING*** Another MAJOR Shakeup At Kentucky Bar Assn?

Reports are coming in of another major shakeup at the Kentucky Bar Association.  The firing of a high ranking bar official is reported to be linked to news coming out of the Fen Phen cases where several lawyers and a judge were recently disbarred. 

The reports suggest that court filings have raised questions regarding the distribution of cash from a fund collected by lawyer Angela Ford who sued various lawyers and obtained a multi-million dollar judgment.  Unconfirmed reports speculate that some of the money from that judgment might have been paid to a family member of a bar association official who was connected with the disciplinary proceedings against the lawyers who were sued to create the fund.

This follows a scathing report by retired judge Stan Billingsley this week which raised serious questions regarding the office of bar counsel's decision to hire outside counsel in some high profile cases at great expense. 

Stan's reports have also revealed that a quick rule change was implemented by the Supreme Court to remove a requirement that attorney's facing disciplinary action post a bond for "attorney fees" before their appeal could be heard.  In at least one case, as reported by Stan, bar counsel's office paid a Louisville law firm $44,000 as "outside counsel" related to a disciplinary case.  It has as yet to be determined if any relationships with that firm are tied in with today's firing.

This is not the first time in recent years that the KBA has had to face embarassing news. 

(source: LawReader News)

What Do You Think Of Them Now?

Kentucky is about to engage in the process of re-drawing the boundaries for legislative districts.  The stated goal is to come as close to insuring "one man, one vote" as possible.  But we all know what is really going on.  The republicans and democrats are going to horse trade boundary lines for political purposes.

The outcome of their gerrymandering could end up before the Kentucky Supreme Court, as it did in the 90's.

I wonder how important Supreme Court races might look to the two major political parties if the same thing happens this time?

How Much Privacy Do You "Expect"

For my lawyer friends and those interested in the bastardization development of constitutional law by the supreme court I encourage you to read an interesting article about the erosion of privacy rights in America.  In it Jonathan Turley considers what might be coming as the court builds upon earlier precedent.

In December 1967, the Supreme Court issued what many consider to be one of its greatest and most eloquent decisions, in Katz v. United States. That case, which is celebrated as saving privacy in the United States, articulated the principle that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.” The decision reversed a long erosion of privacy protection and required greater use of warrants by the government.

This past week, a different high court sat to hear a new privacy challenge in Jones v. United States. The issue this time is whether privacy protections are dying in the United States — and whether Katz may be to blame.

The Jones case involves one of the most ubiquitous pieces of technology in modern life: a Global Positioning System device.

Under the Katz test, warrants would be needed when there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy” by a citizen. But that standard laid the foundation for the demise of privacy. As we come to expect less privacy, we are entitled to less of it.

As warrantless surveillance rises, our expectations fall, allowing such surveillance to become more common. The result is a move toward limitless police powers. [Jonathan Turley]

The Obama administration will argue in court that there should be less privacy. 

So much for him breaking away from the Bush era expansion of government surveillance so many civil libertarians were fooled into thinking he represented, HUH!

Showering With Naked Little Boys

No, I'm not talking about the current Penn State scandal in which Jerry Sandusky's shower room conduct has brought down Ol' Joe Paterno and the football program.  I'm talking about a 1998 investigation into Sandusky by the local police in which he admitted to "hugging" naked little boys in the shower.

In 1998, the Penn State campus police and local law enforcement authorities investigated an allegation that Jerry Sandusky, then a prominent coach with the university’s football team, had engaged in inappropriate and perhaps sexual conduct with a boy in the football facility’s showers.

“Sandusky admitted showering naked with Victim 6, admitted to hugging Victim 6 while in the shower and admitted that it was wrong,” said the report issued last weekend by the Pennsylvania attorney general. “Detective Schreffler advised Sandusky not to shower with any child again and Sandusky said that he would not.”

In the end, no prosecution was undertaken. The child welfare agency did not take action. And, according to prosecutors, the commander of the university’s campus police force told his detective, Ronald Schreffler, to close the case.

Who's the Sherlock Holmes who ordered this case closed?  Talk about dropping the soap ball.

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sometimes Right Should Trump "Legal"

A California court has just upheld the decision of a school to prohibit students from wearing any clothing which displays the American Flag on Cinco de Mayo.  The rule was upheld based upon an earlier precedent which declared that schools have the right to limit any speech which is likely to cause a disruption.

As you know, courts say they are bound to follow precedent.  However, as we all know, they often change that precedent when the judges who are making the decision don't agree with it and can articulate a reason for setting a "new" precedent.

This is what frustrates the ordinary citizen.  Courts often stand their ground against unpopular sentiments as if existing decisions are sacred.  But the fact is that in most cases, there are no absolutes.  Despite the image some judges may have of themselves, their decisions are merely the opinions of mortal men.  Their "wisdom" is not derived from some God like source from whom they consult and receive a divine proclamation.

So when judges agree that schools are free to restrict speech which could cause a disturbance they abandon the absolute language of the Constitution, they ignore the free will of the parents of the students, they turn a blind eye to the fact that most schools are not private organizations free to set their own rules but rather are government institutions and that parents are often obligated, under penalty of law, to send their children there.

Should schools be free to control speech leaving the decision as to what speech is "disruptive" up to the arbitrary will of any particular administrator, or should there be some universal guiding value applied consistently?

If you think the second choice is a better course you are in good company.  That's why our founders declared that our "rights" come from God.  There is no higher authority.

"Through The Looking Glass" Update: Muslims Sue Catholic University

As one headline says, can this REALLY be happening?

The Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights confirmed that it is investigating allegations that Catholic University violated the human rights of Muslim students by not allowing them to form a Muslim student group and by not providing them rooms without Christian symbols for their daily prayers.

The investigation alleges that Muslim students “must perform their prayers surrounded by symbols of Catholicism – e.g., a wooden crucifix, paintings of Jesus, pictures of priests and theologians which many Muslim students find inappropriate.”

A spokesperson for the Office of Human Rights told Fox News they had received a 60-page complaint against the private university. The investigation, they said, could take as long a six months.

Patrick Reilly, the president of the Cardinal Newman Society, an organization that promotes Catholic identity among Catholic schools, seemed stunned by the complaint.

“I don’t know what the attorney wants them to do – if he wants them to actually move the Basilica or if the Muslim students can find someplace where they don’t have to look at it,” he told Fox News.

Catholic University, he said, is a Catholic institution. [Fox]

Edmondson Files RICO Complaint Over NKAPC Issue

Gary Edmondson in his capacity as Kenton County Attorney has filed a Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) complaint in Federal Court against the Arizona company hired to collect signatures in support of the referendum to put the continued operation of the Northern Ky Area Planning Commission on the ballot.

Edmondson has named AZ Petition Partners LLC, Andrew D. Chavez of Tempe Arizona and Unknown Defendants who helped collect the signatures as defendants.

The primary factual basis upon which the complaint is premised is the allegation of forgery regarding several signatures turned in by Petition Partners as constituting the will of the person named on the petition.  Edmondson says that those people did not sign the petition and that the evidence suggests that subcontractors of Petition Partners merely obtained names from a local phone directory.

A PDF copy of the complaint can be found at THIS LINK