On Being A Titan, Part One, Or, See It, Say It, Sue It

by: fake consultant

Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 01:54:29 AM EST

Two local activists in particular have drawn the ire of Titan Cement, the Grecian corporation who seeks to build the plant-and because the Company doesn't like what the activists have been saying about what the impact of that plant will likely be or how the deal's going down...they're suing Kayne Darrell and Dr. David Hill, residents of North Carolina's New Hanover County, and the two folks who are doing the complaining the Company dislikes the most.

The Company further claims that they were slandered and defamed by the damaging statements that were uttered by the two at a county commissioners' meeting and that they have lost goodwill and the chance to do business with certain parties as a result of these statements.

But what if everything the Defendants said was not only true...but provably so-and the Company was, maybe...just looking to shut people up by sending teams of lawyers after them?

As I said, it's a simple story today-but it's a good one.

Chet Zarko on Mark Grebner's legal failures

by: David Boyle

Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 13:35:25 PM EST

    Anyway, Chet on his "Outside Lansing" blog published four diaries commenting about Mark Grebner's failed lawsuit versus the voter list grab. (He insults Mich Lib there, too! so grit your teeth as needed if you scan the diaries.)
    In Mark Grebner to sue Michigan for Deal to Secret Away Election Records, Le Chet notes,

    ...The Parties cut themselves a special deal and wrote into law an amendment to the election code that secreted away election data and gave it to the private political parties before ordering the government to destroy it and exempting it from FOIA for everyone else.  
    It's plainly a violation of the equal protection clause and a sweetheart deal for the parties, and we should resist such deals for a thousand good reasons. ...

    Then, in the short diary Grebner-Primary Hearing Today at 1:30, Zark sez,

    ...Important case.  Not only is the January primary hinging on it, but the equal treatment for public records rides on it. ...

    The next, more substantial diary, Court of Appeals Decides 2-1 Against January primary - Why they were right., opines,

   ...I will comment on that dissent more because it illustrates two points I think are important which the lawyers in this case did not argue effectively (granted, the case was argued on short notice). ...
    While Grebner apparently did make a "vague First Amendment argument" (vague according to the dissent and Circuit Court, which did not rule on it), he does not appear to have made an equal protection argument, something I suspect could have been made at least as well as a vague First Amendment argument.  Indeed, the concept of "viewpoint neutrality", a concept that has roots in both the 14th and 1st Amendments, is clearly implied by Whitbeck's dissent - which acknowledges that public property is being used for private purposes, but argues that the parties are also engaged in public purposes as well (which is the flaw in his reasoning, in my opinion). ...
    The majority comes to the opposite - I believe correct conclusion - by noting that the primary motivation and effect of the special deal provision of the law giving the parties and only the parties access to voter lists is the private benefit the parties will receive, not the "incidental" public benefit that may accrue from the parties using the lists to communicate (in their own biased ways, of course) with voters about candidates and ballot questions. ...
    ...the law on its face violates the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, specifically by exempting records under FOIA only for certain people and allowing other people access to the same records.  Since the public purpose of FOIA is to protect citizens from the harms of secret government, a law that grants access to some and not others unequally protects some citizens over others.  ...By exempting FOIA specifically, but allowing two persons (the two party chairs) to become part of a new category of persons with special access to records, the law raises that issue. ...My concern is that all individuals - all persons - have the same rights and abilities to engage on issues, candidates, and general speech. ...
    ...Whitbeck [who voted to uphold the law] simply doesn't appreciate the damage to the primary process centralized control could cause if an authoritarian like Brewer used the information as a wedge (one wonders if Democratic list-broker Mark Grebner was speaking from experience or first-hand knowledge, but just unwilling to say it was experience because Brewer is simultaneously his client and competitor), and even though I like Saul there's always room for accident and bias even with good intentions. ...

    And finally, in the pointedly titled Michigan Supreme Court Rules for Primary - Reveals Fatal Legal Failure by Grebner Attorneys, CZ puts forth,

    ...We also noted then what we saw as a weakness in Grebner's initial legal arguments and strategy.  He failed to articulate these arguments, and although the Court of Appeals records suggests that he made a "vague" First Amendment argument in the Circuit Court, they did not rule on that issue.
    Well, what's the punchline from the Michigan Supreme Court ruling today.  OL quotes the final paragraph:

[Chet's blockquote]
(O) This order addresses only the question whether MCL 168.615c violates Const 1963, art 2, § 4 and art 4, § 30, the only issues addressed by the lower courts. In particular, this order does not address the validity of MCL 168.615c under any other provision of the federal or state constitutions, and it does not address whether MCL 168.615c is inconsistent with any other provision of federal or state law. [end of Chet's blockquote]

    That appears to be a wide open door for someone to drive a legal challenge through, and is almost exactly in line with the arguments we made last week. ...

    Ouch. ...Chet is not a lawyer, to my knowledge; but Grebner did fail (the Republican "Gang of Four" on the Mich. Supreme Ct. aside), so maybe Zarko makes some sense here.

    I disagree with Chet's conclusion, though,

The most democratic outcome in this case would actually be for the primary to occur (a democratic & open vote, rather than party caucus) and an injunction following the primary requiring equal access to the list.

    Given the number of Democrats thinking of boycotting the DNC-rulebreaking primary, not to mention the chance of absentee voters including soldiers abroad and seniors not getting their ballots on time, I'm not sure about the "democratic & open vote". Also, the lists may be tainted by huge numbers of "Democrats for Ron Paul for a Day".
    In addition, if Grebner or someone else didn't file a federal court suit until after the primary, or filed it beforehand but without asking for expedited/emergency consideration, Grebner might look as if he were "sleeping on his rights" or otherwise half-hearted, and the court might be disinclined to grant his wishes. (After all, he filed the state court suit fairly early on; if he has such confidence in his claims, why would he wait overlong to file a federal court suit, unless he now doesn't really believe what he's saying??)    

    Conclusion: Chet Zarko has laid out some avenues for Grebner, or those who can take up his claims, to attack the voter list graft in federal court. Now that there's a suit against the state and the MDP, as frontpaged at Mich Lib yesterday, to inspire other Democratic activists, can we see if Grebner is capable of learning from some of his own failures and crafting a successful and timely suit against the voter list graft, or not? It is always nice to see people who are capable of learning, but it's up to them to show that they have learned.

Go to federal court, Mark Grebner

by: David Boyle

Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 15:44:19 PM EST

  Whether you make claims in federal court re takings, substantive and/or procedural due process, equal protection, 1st and 8th amendment stuff re making it a misdemeanor for journalists/folks to discuss the voter lists, ...not to mention equities/issues like

1) the county clerks saying they can't get out the absentee ballots on time (disenfranchising our SOLDIERS IN IRAQ, for cripes' sake),

2) the fact that the Democratic vote will be disenfranchised as a whole with a 1/15 primary (since it violates DNC rules and the delegates won't even be counted at the national convention...and there are few candidates on the ballot as well)--and don't forget the implementation challenge to be filed against the MDP for the MDP disenfranchising Michigan Dems!--,

3) the waste of public money on such a primary (as Speaker Andy Dillon has mentioned),

4) the interest in settled, fair decisions and procedures, not rush jobs like the State of Michigan is shoving down people's throats;

or other claims entirely: there may very likely be some powerful way or ways to challenge any arbitrary, capricious, and/or just plain stupid Michigan state government or court decisions recently made. So I hope you challenge, as soon as possible.

  Even if you're not successful in the end (God forbid), you will at least have educated the public further about the extent to which their government is willing to steal from them, play with their votes (including soldiers' votes from abroad) and silence/criminalize free speech (again, the misdemeanor about discussing voter lists). So, it's more than worth the shot, any way one looks at it.

  Moreover, you will be giving a great Thanksgiving present to the public by doing so, since someone should be protecting the people of Michigan from thievery, disenfranchisement, and bullying by a shady governmental apparatus. And people will give you thanks for doing it. I know I will.

  Godspeed! We know you can do it! And have a great Thanksgiving, everybody!!

Confirmed: Bishop Buckles on Blog Block

by: LiberalLucy

Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 16:52:02 PM EDT

Citing "management issues" Bishop came out this afternoon with the news that Blogging for Michigan will no longer be blocked in the State Senate.

Apparently Bishop's also going to instruct Secretary of the State Carol Viventi to come up with an internet policy for Senate Staffers.

Does that mean uttering a 'Sieg Heil' before logging on to the Internet, Mike?

Tuesday Coffee Talk - Senate Style

by: LiberalLucy

Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:10:31 AM EDT

Bloggers to Bishop: We will not be Silenced

by: LiberalLucy

Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 16:54:02 PM EDT

2) 3:59 p.m. - The same blogger posted a YouTube video of Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer criticizing the Senate Republicans. The same post announced that the Senate Democrats would soon start publishing posts about the legislation they would like to work on.

3) 4:26 - Within 27 minutes, BFM was blocked from Senate computers by order of State Senator Republican Majority Leader Mike Bishop's Chief of Staff Matt Miner. Miner, Michigan's own Scooter Libby, instructed Secretary of the Senate Carol Viventi to censor BFM only.

4) All other blogs in Michigan, left and right, still are accessible by Senate staff.

5) BFM is still censored by Senate computers, and an established blogger was forced to out herself by their witch hunt.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Paid for by your tax dollars,  your State Sentate Majority Leader Mike Bishop is hard at work destroying your personal freedoms.

It's not about a blog, or politics, or a person. It's about censorship, and your rights, or lack thereof as seen fit by your State Senate Republican Majority Leader Mike Bishop.

Senate Republican Majority Leader Mike Bishop Declares War on Blogs

by: LiberalLucy

Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 15:40:02 PM EDT

Apparently bankrupting the state isn't all Michigan State Senate Republican Leader Mike Bishop wants to do. This time he's gone after one of Michigan's best lefty blogs, Blogging for Michigan.

After a post went up today on BFM about the wrong-doings one of Bishop's cronies, out-of-touch Senator Bruce Patterson (R-Canton), Mike Bishop's Chief of Staff Matt Miner, called Secretary of the Senate Carol Viventi and instructed her to block access to all blogs from the Senate offices.

After quickly realizing that all blogs also included the blogs on the Republican rag, The Detroit News, they specifically only blocked Blogging for Michigan.

Tsk, tsk Mike. First rules of the Netroots, don't piss off the bloggers.

Hell hath no fury as a lefty blogger scorned.

Most importantly, by instituting this block, Mike Bishop is promoting censorship and trampling on the high holy First Amendment, and trying to take away everything you, the netroots is trying to create.

Ladies and gents, your Republican State Senate Majority Leader is hard at work for you, abusing his power in every way he can.

Update (Eric B.) I don't usually step on the toes of other front pagers, but I've got a response from Bishop's chief of staff.

Michigan Workers Effectively Gagged

by: Michael Motta

Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 08:48:23 AM EDT

We had a fairly lengthy discussion about this in the Lansing State Journal Community Message Board. I'm going to post one of my contributions. If it seems to enter abruptly, in medias res, that's because it does. I think a basic knowledge of the news story should suffice as context though.

Post Office Says "Bye, Bye" to Free Speech Unless We Stop Them by April 23

by: jtcaldwell

Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:29:19 AM EDT