Yesterday, Judge Thomas Hogan ordered Rep. Jim McDermott to pay Rep. John Boehner the damages stemming from a 1998 lawsuit. Here’s the gist of Judge Hogan’s ruling:

A federal judge in Washington has ordered Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott to pay more than $1 million in attorney’s fees awarded to Minority Leader John A. Boehner as part of a protracted lawsuit involving an illegally taped cell phone call.

U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Hogan ruled that McDermott, D-Wash., must pay $1,053,181, plus $520,761 in interest to Boehner, R-Ohio.

There’s alot of history behind this ruling. Here’s a nice summarization of that history:

Boehner sued McDermott in 1998, accusing him of leaking the contents of a conference call that a Florida couple had illegally taped from Boehner’s cell phone in 1996.

In the call, Republican leaders, including then-Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia (1979-99), discussed responding to ethics allegations against Gingrich, who served as Speaker from 1995 to 1999.

McDermott at the time was the ranking Democrat on the House ethics panel.

The attorney’s fee payment comes on top of $60,000 in damages that McDermott already has paid Boehner out of his legal expense fund.

In December, McDermott paid Boehner $50,000 in court-ordered punitive damages, $10,000 in statutory damages and another $4,169 in interest, according to public disclosure filings. The payment was made shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a federal appeals court ruling in Boehner’s favor.

What’s hillarious is McDermott’s statement after being notified of the ruling: (continue reading post »)

Robert “CJ” Parry has tipped another cow on LAPD’s command staff.

In this LA Times op-ed from March 16, 2008, Parry exposed how East Coast import William Bratton used this three-year-old shooting as a pretext to push for a series of politically-correct changes within LAPD’s Special Weapons & Tactics Team (SWAT) designed to appoint unqualified female officers. SWAT wives are understandably upset.

A Brief History

Appointing unqualified candidates to LAPD ranks is an old story. When LA politicians decided there weren’t enough women or minorities on the LAPD during the 1980s, then-Mayor Tom Bradley ordered the LAPD to accept more.

Unless each class graduated the correct ratio of black, brown, and female officers, none of the overwhelming number of highly qualified white officers could be hired either. When some women couldn’t vault walls, the walls were lowered. Written tests were made simpler. Some recruits even lacked the finger strength to fire their pistols. Another complained that her heavy badge hurt her shoulder and back and took a desk job.

Officers who questioned the fitness of these useless officers were sternly warned about workplace harassment rules. Some field training officers (FTOs) were forced to pass dangerously incompetent rookies or lose their rank and merit pay. Some rookies stood no more than five feet tall and others were appointed despite known criminal affiliations. And because female officers must use a greater level of force than their male counterparts (to compensate for skinny arms and legs), some have unnecessarily shot and killed unarmed naked teenagers. Despite some outrageous (but secretly settled) excessive force lawsuits, no female officer has ever been charged criminally for using excessive force on the LAPD or in California.

Certain organizations within the LAPD have remained free from LAPD’s affirmative action mediocrity.

Motorcycle Enforcement (Motors), for example, requires officers to be able to straddle a motorcycle without it tipping over. They must also know how to ride. Gravity and physics have a way of weeding out weak riders regardless of race or gender.

The other unit is SWAT. Throughout its 35 year history, SWAT officers have only lost one hostage despite thousands of dangerous incidents. Until recently, no officer was ever lost during an incident.

That’s the good news.

The Bad News

The bad news is that many of the LAPD’s lackluster rookies now comprise the LAPD’s mid- and senior level management today. One of them, Assistant Chief Sharon Papa, was promoted as a commander in 1997 after the LAPD was forced to absorb LA’s former bus police (MTA). Papa was promoted to chief of police there after chasing buses for seven years.

To find a way to shoehorn a female into SWAT, Bratton used this three-year-old shooting as a pretext:

… Police Chief William J. Bratton appointed a board of inquiry to examine the incident. Its mission, he said, was to investigate the officers’ tactics and other factors in the shooting. “For the safety of the public and officers, we need to understand intimately what transpired in that incident,” he said at the time.

In fact, the board did nothing of the sort. None of the SWAT officers from the Peña shooting were even interviewed by the panel, according to multiple sources. Indeed, the board’s eight members included fewer tactical experts (one) than attorneys (three). In its final report, the board acknowledged that it had been “ultimately precluded from gaining a full and complete understanding of what transpired in Peña until after this report was finalized.”

What’s more, Assistant Chief Sharon Papa privately promised the team shortly after the incident that the report would be aired openly, according to officers who were present. That didn’t happen either.

The final report — completed 15 months ago — has not been released. Many senior department officials have never seen it, and Times reporters have repeatedly requested it but have been turned down.

Rumors of the secret report got back to a SWAT wife. In this widely circulated message, she emailed Assistant Chief Sharon Papa on March 10th:

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:08:57 -0700
From: “LAPD SWAT Wife”
To:”SHARON PAPA” sharon.papa@lapd.lacity.org>
Subject: Re: D TEAM wives

Recently a group of LAPD SWAT wives gathered to learn how to support our husbands and deal with our redefined roles after the death of the first SWAT officer. This has had an enormous ripple effect through the SWAT families. The reality of how easily that could have been our husband. And although it wasn’t we have been consumed with guilt and grief for the family that was affected. Now we have heard there are actions being taken to lower the hiring standard for getting into SWAT. Although I can’t speak for everyone the majority of us are offended that at this time of grieving that anyone would do this to these officers. We are concerned with the safety of our husbands, the father of our children if they are expected to go into these highly dangerous situations with someone who got in under a compromised standard.

Of the 60 men on SWAT 52 are married. It is widely believed this is an attempt to be politically correct and allow a female officer on the team. We do not begrudge a female making it on the team. And from what I understand neither do the men of SWAT. However, she needs to meet the same criteria. The motto of the SWAT team is “Uncompromised Duty Honor and Valor” this is compromising all those. You do not see the NFL, NHL, MLB lowering their standard to allow females to get to play. And those are entertainment organizations for profit. It defies common sense that a life saving organization would be willing to.

The SWAT selection certification process has been tried and tested. It has been in place for 20 years and it was approved by the city. If you watched Randy Simmons funeral or if you know any of the members of this elite division of law enforcement you would know it is working. Their record proves it. It doesn’t require change. Change is only good when something is not working. We will not sit quietly by and allow you to compromise our husbands safety.

Chief Papa responded two hours later:

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:08:57 -0700
From: “SHARON PAPA” sharon.papa@lapd.lacity.org>
To: “LAPD SWAT Wife”
Subject: Re: D TEAM wives

I am not aware of any actions being taken to lower the standards for getting into SWAT. (BOLD ADDED) I do know that the LASD recently did a validation study of their requirements and our Chief wanted to have ours looked at as well to make sure our standards are still legally valid.

I will forward your inquiry to Chief Paysinger and Chief Roupoli since they would be involved in any review that may currently be underway. I appreciate your e-mail and certainly understand your concerns. Once I have more information, I will get back in touch with you.

When Parry’s op-ed was published a week later, it was clear that Chief Papa and Bratton knew all about the secret inquiry and had lied to the LAPD wives, possibly in violation of LAPD Manual sections 828 , 360, and 115.95, all of which ordinary officers could be suspended immediately without pay or terminated.

Two days later, the Los Angeles Police Protective League LAPPL attacked Bratton for the scheme.

I won’t blame Bratton or Papa, however. Bratton was hired for his East Coast discretion. This kind of politically correct secrecy illustrates why a police agency should never be controlled by a sleazy mayor or a wild band of anti-police lawyers.

Until civil service protections are restored and a real cop is appointed as the chief of police, we can expect more secrecy and mediocrity from the Mayor and Bratton.

Active or former officers or their wives are encouraged to contact me privately here.

In a brilliant move, NY Republicans are demanding that Eliot Spitzer resign or face impeachment charges. Here’s the details on this development:

State Assemblyman James Tedisco (R-Schenectady) told CBS 2 HD that he spoke with Lt. Governor Paterson Monday evening and that the two discussed Paterson taking on a new role of leadership, leading Tedisco to believe that action was “forthcoming.”

Tedisco said if Spitzer does not resign according to a deadline that’s been imposed, state Republican leadership will call for impeachment proceedings to begin.

Spitzer, though, was clearly examining his legal options Monday night; a spokesman said the governor had retained the Manhattan law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, one of the nation’s most prominent.

The last thing Democrats want to do is defend a corrupt politician heading into elction season. The last thing that Howard Dean wants to be dealing with is the RNC campaigning on the Democrats’ culture of corruption. Redstate’s California Yankee is now saying that Spitzer will attempt to “pull a Clinton” and stay in office:

Washington Post correspondent, Libby Copeland, reminds us that we have seen it all before: (continue reading post »)

When police detective Taro Nakamura told Ellis Cleveland that he was suspected of robbing four banks, Cleveland allegedly responded, “Four, I didn’t do four, I only robbed three banks. But it doesn’t matter because I’m not talking…”

The story here.

Michael has an interesting post up about Al Franken attending an event featuring Rep. Maxine Waters. Waters is one of the most out there liberals in Congress. What I found fascinating is that Rep. Waters once wrote Fidel Castro. Here’s what Michael posted about that letter:

Waters Wrote Fidel Castro To Urge Him Not To Deport Convicted Killer. “Assata Shakur, a member of the Black Panthers formerly known as Joanne Chesimard, fled to Cuba after being convicted of the 1973 execution-style killing of a New Jersey state trooper, Werner Foerster. The final shots to his head were fired as he lay wounded on the ground. Shakur’s friends helped her break out of prison. Federal officials have been trying to get her back from Cuba since she surfaced there in the 1980s. Despite Shakur’s murderous acts, U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., wrote Cuban President Fidel Castro and urged him not to deport Shakur. Waters claimed Shakur had been persecuted ‘as a result of her political beliefs and political affiliations.’” (David B. Cooper Op-Ed, “Murderers Deserve No Part Of Clemency,” Akron Beacon Journal, September 9, 1999)

The name Assata Shakur rang a bell for me. Here’s why: (continue reading post »)

The Utah Department of Safety has concluded that trooper Jon Gardner’s use of a TASER against a “speeding motorist” was reasonable and justified.

Motorist Jared Massey said, “I don’t feel the use of the TASER was justified because I feel the police officer is the one who is the professional and escalated this situation to where he had to use it.”

The TASER

When operated correctly, the TASER fires two small darts that hook into the clothing or skin of the suspect. Connected by thin wires, the darts close a 50,000 volt circuit through the suspect’s body. Like a baton, the TASER is a pain compliance device that renders suspects helpless during arrest without producing physical injuries the way batons, punches, and kicks do. But unlike those more primitive applications of force, the TASER works well on intoxicated violent suspects who often do not feel the pain that convinces suspects to comply with verbal commands.

Reasonable & Justified

After reviewing the video, I agree that Gardner’s actions were reasonable and justified.

Officer Gardner didn’t use the TASER against a “speeding motorist.” Officer Gardner used it against a speeding motorist who 1) argued with a lone officer, 2) on a remote stretch of interstate highway, 3) refused to sign the citation, and 4) and walked back toward his vehicle against the officer’s lawful commands. Taxpayers must decide whether their officers are employed to ignore suspects who resist arrest.

When back-up officers arrived later, Gardner said that Massey “took a ride with the TASER.” In the context of real cops asking other real cops questions at the scene, Gardner’s response was clear, concise, and appropriate. But to students of crime dramas like TJ Hooker and CSI, the comment may seem inappropriate.

Call My Lawyer!

Lawyers like Stephen Yagman make millions by bringing ridiculous cases like this into court. But when Yagman’s cases were jeopardized by his criminal clients, he often gave this kind of closing argument:

“We know my client is a low-life felon and doesn’t deserve a million dollars. We also know that excessive force is a serious problem with the police department. Therefore, I ask you to award my client one dollar – one dollar to send a message to the LAPD that excessive force will not be tolerated.”

Sounds reasonable, right? What the jury doesn’t know (and what the court is prohibited from disclosing) is that a one dollar judgment requires the defendant to pay millions of dollars in Yagman’s legal fees.

Two of LA’s biggest shake-down lawyers are no longer in action. Johnny Cochran is vacationing in hell and Yagman begins his three year sentence for tax evasion and bankruptcy fraud next month.

If Massey sues, let’s hope that Utah jurors are smarter than their LA counterparts.

Jason Whitlock responds to members of the black press after they complained that news outlets were disrespecting Taylor’s victimhood by reporting on his troubled past:

No disrespect to Taylor, but he controlled the way he would be remembered by the way he lived. His immature, undisciplined behavior with his employer, his run-ins with law enforcement, which included allegedly threatening a man with a loaded gun, and the fact a vehicle he owned was once sprayed with bullets are all pertinent details when you’ve been murdered… Black men are targets of black men. Period. Go check the coroner’s office and talk with a police detective. These bullets aren’t checking W-2s.

Rather than whine about white folks’ insensitivity or reserve a special place of sorrow for rich athletes, we’d be better served mustering the kind of outrage and courage it took in the 1950s and 1960s to stop the white KKK from hanging black men from trees…

More here

Broadcast legend George Putnam has picked up Migdia Chinea’s story.

You may recall that her LAUSD classroom was burglarized and she endured an on-campus assault last month. According to Chinea, the burglar used a school district key to remove her laptop, wallet and glasses. Anyone check Sandy Berger’s socks lately?

And why does the LA Times fail to cover violent and property crime from LAUSD campuses? LAUSD students and teachers endure more crime most US cities! Hello! Times! Daily News!

Is anyone there!!!

Keith Ellison is taking his anti-voter ID campaign all the way to the Supreme Court. Specifically, he’s filed a brief with the court stating that a photo ID card is a variation of a poll tax.

Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the only Muslim in the U.S. Congress, has filed a brief with the Supreme Court in a voter proof-of-identification case that he says disenfranchises black voters.

Ellison urged the court to strike down an Indiana law that requires a person to have a photo ID to vote. Last month, he introduced legislation that would ban the requirement in federal elections.

Ellison, a first-term congressman, filed the brief with the support of all the other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including presidential candidate Barack Obama, a Democratic senator.

“In America, our right to vote is a sacred right, and a moral obligation,” Ellison said in a statement Thursday. “We must do everything that encourages, fosters and facilitates everyone’s ability to exercise that right. While photo IDs seem harmless, they are in fact the modern day poll tax.”

Ellison’s rants notwithstanding, he couldn’t be more wrong. Requiring a photo ID to vote is the only way to prevent voter fraud. Here in Minnesota, part of the election law requires election workers determine a voter’s residential status. Here’s what the relevant portion of Minnesota Election Law says: (continue reading post »)

That’s the headline I never thought I’d see. Here’s what Bonds is charged with:

Baseball superstar Barry Bonds was charged Thursday with perjury and obstruction of justice for allegedly lying when he said he did not use performance-enhancing drugs.

Here’s the link to the actual indictment. Here’s some of Bonds’ grand jury testimony:

Q: I know the answer - - let me ask you this again. I know we kind of got the into this. Let me be real clear about this. Did he [Anderson] ever give you anything that you knew to be a steroid? Did he ever give a steroid?
A: I don’t think Greg would do anything like that to me and jeopardize our friendship. I just don’t think he would do that.
Q: Well, when you say you don’t think he would do that, to your knowledge, 1 mean, did you ever take any steroids that he gave you?
(a) A: Not that I know of.
…………………………..
Q: Okay. So, 1 got to ask, Mr. Bonds. There’s this number associated on a document with your name, and corresponding to Barry B. on the other document, and it does have these two listed anabolic steroids as testing positive in connection with it. Do you follow my question?
A: I follow where you’re going, yeah.
Q: So, 1 guess I got to ask the question again, I mean, did you take steroids? And specifically this test is in November, 2000. So I’m going to ask you in the days and weeks leading up to November, 2000, were you taking steroids–
A: No.
Q: - - or anything like that?
A: No, 1 wasn’t at all. I’ve never seen these documents. I’ve never seen these papers.
Q: So, starting in December 2001, on this page. again, there’s BB here, which obviously are consistent with your initials; correct?
A: He could know other BBs.
Q: Correct. But BB would also be your initials; is that correct.
A: That’s correct.
Q: In January 2001 were you taking either the flax seed oil or the cream?
A: No.
Q: And were you taking any other steroids?
(e) A: No.

The White House issued this statement after Bonds’ indictment broke:

President Bush, a former baseball team owner who has spoken against steroid use,
is “very disappointed to hear this,” said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. “As this case is now in the criminal justice system, we will refrain from any further specific comments about it. But clearly this is a sad day for baseball.”

If they’re able to convict Bonds on these charges, his single season home run record could be wiped out. If that happens, Bonds would be well short of Hank Aaron’s record, which would put a big smile on my face.

Technorati Tags: Barry Bonds, BALCO, Steroids, Grand Jury, Indictments, Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, Hank Aaron, Testimony, Immunity, MLB

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog