LetMyPeopleVote
LetMyPeopleVote's JournalJuanita Jean responds to Stockman's threat to put people who post his mugshot in jail
Stockman is threatening to put anyone who posts his mug shot in jail. Juanita Jean did not back down in the face of Stockman's amusing threat http://www.juanitajean.com/2014/03/03/id-be-willing-to-do-it-but-now-im-scared/
Most of you know that Texas Congressfool Steve Stockman is running against Senator John Cornyn for the highly undistinguished honor of being the Republican nominee for Senate in Texas.
Cornyn’s people dug up an old mug shot of Stockman and started putting in all over town.
Stockman was arrested in 1977 for felony possession of valium. The case was dismissed and Stockman says the record was expunged.
I didn’t say anything about it because I know plenty folks who made some mistakes and then turned themselves around and have lived a distinguished and honorable life. I figured it would backfire on Cornyn.
But, noooooooo. Stockman couldn’t just explain and let it be. He had to threaten someone.
Stockman probably needs that valium now.
He’s gone batcrap crazy and is threatening to file criminal charges against anyone who posts his mug shot on the internet machine. You know, this one.
Oh yeah, batcrap crazy.
Michigan’s 43rd Judicial District Clerk stated Stockman was never convicted of any charge and the documents were supposed to have been destroyed in 1978. Another Michigan official has advised Stockman he has grounds to file criminal complaints against any person or media organization that published the documents.
Well, that does it. I will not publish his mugshot on my internet page. Not me. I kinda figure this picture isn’t worth actual criminal charges being filed against me.
So, you know, I will not post it.
Now, if I knew some lawyers, I might just start putting it in women’s restrooms all over Michigan. And by “it”, I mean this.
But, since I do not know any lawyers, at least not any who would go to Michigan for me, I will have to be content with just looking at other people’s internet page with this picture. You know, this one.
I’m sorry that Steve Stockman got in my face and issued a challenge to have me arrested in Michigan and I backed down. I know you’re disappointed in me. But, I just figure the picture isn’t worth going to jail over. You know, this one.
I love Juanita Jean
I have been ask to be a republican election judge on Tuesday
My youngest child is going to be the democratic election judge for my precinct on Tuesday. Normally it is the democrats who have problems getting enough judges. Today the republican election judge for my precinct canceled. I have a great relationship with my county election administrator and so he ask me to be the GOP election judge on Tuesday. The election administrator calls this being a republican for a day. In the interests of good relations with the election office, I will be the judge for this primary.
My daughter and I have already voted in the democratic primary. This could be fun. As a practical matter an election judge can not influence a voter without breaking the law. You take an oath just before the polls open.
Dan Patrick Accidentally Endorses Gay Marriage On Twitter
Dan Patrick is an idiot http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dan-patrick-gay-marriage-typo
Texas state Sen. Dan Patrick (R) accidentally endorsed same-sex marriage in a tweet on Wednesday.
Patrick, who is running for lieutenant governor, intended to express his disapproval of a federal judge's decision to strike down the state's ban on gay marriage. Instead, Patrick defined marriage as between "ONE MAN & ONE MAN."
He only wants to prevent one type of gay marriage.
Battleground Texas responds to O'Keefe's latest video
O'Keefe is out with a video claiming that Battleground Texas is breaking Texas law by collecting telephone numbers from voters when they register voters. I am a deputy voter registrar in Texas and have worked at a couple of Battleground events. The Battleground people are well organized and are in compliance with Texas law. The Texas AG referred this case to the San Antonio DA and David Dewhurst has referred this issue to the AG.
Battleground has responded to the claims of O'Keefe. Battleground Texas' lawyers agree with my position that Texas law was not broken. Here is the letter from the lawyers for Battleground on this issue https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gcGVSQURDelZSXzg/edit?pli=1 The same firm that represents President Obama is representing Battleground. This response is well done. Here is a link to one of the opinions from Greg Abbott that is cited in this letter https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/openrecords/50abbott/orl/2010/htm/or201008083.htm
You also argue the voters' telephone numbers and dates of birth are excepted from disclosure, and highlight language in sections 13.004(a) and 13.004(d) of the Election Code. However, for information to be confidential under section 552.101, the provision of law must explicitly require confidentiality. A confidentiality requirement will not be inferred from a provision's structure. See Open Records Decision Nos. 658 at 4 (1998) (stating that statutory confidentiality provision must be express and confidentiality requirement will not be implied from statutory structure), 478 at 2 (1987) (stating that, as general rule, statutory confidentiality requires express language making information confidential), 465 at 4-5 (1987). Section 13.004(a) prohibits the county from transcribing, copying, or recording a voter's telephone number. See Elec. Code § 13.004(a). Section 13.004(d) prohibits the posting of certain specified information on a website. See id. § 13.004(d). Because neither section 13.004(a) or section 13.004(d) explicitly provides that information is confidential, we find that the county may not withhold the telephone numbers and birth dates of voters from the requestor under section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with section 13.004 of the Election Code.
Again, Attorney General Abbott has issued clear opinions on this issue and it is clear that Battleground is not violating any law and that O'Keefe is lying. I am amused that Greg Abbott did not know he had opined on this issue already.
I also love the fact that fool Christian Adams was too stupid to read Texas law on this issue http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2014/02/19/new-okeefe-video-battleground-texas-violates-election-law-to-help-wendy-davis/ Christian Adams is the idiot who was illegally hired by the DOJ by the bushies and had to leave the DOJ when real attorneys took over. I love it when this fool is shown to be ignorant of the law
Federal Judge Rules Texas Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
This is great news http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/texas_gay_marriage_ban_ruled_unconstitutional
A federal judge in San Antonio declared Texas' ban on gay marriage unconstitutional Wednesday, the San Antonio Express-News reported.
But U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia issued a stay along with the ruling, according to the newspaper, so the ban remains in place for the time being.
Federal Judge Rules Texas Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
Source: Talking Points Memo
A federal judge in San Antonio declared Texas' ban on gay marriage unconstitutional Wednesday, the San Antonio Express-News reported.
But U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia issued a stay along with the ruling, according to the newspaper, so the ban remains in place for the time being.
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/texas_gay_marriage_ban_ruled_unconstitutional
This is great news
Fort Bend County Democrats hired Sarah Slaman a while back
I am been meaning to post about what my county party is doing. Fort Bend County is the home of Tom DeLay but the Texas State Democratic Party and my county party are working hard to turn this county blue. One of the great decisions made by the party chair was to hire Sarah Slamen. Sarah was a hero/great speaker at the hearings on the Texas abortion law last summer. Here is a video of her testimony
Here is a youtube video of Lawrence O'Donnell interviewing Sarah
I have enjoyed watching Sarah in action and I am very happy that the Fort Bend County party has hired Sarah. My county has been sending block walkers out in a very systematic fashion to contact the 40,000 or so Democrats who voted in 2008 and 2012 but not 2010. If we can motivate a significant number of these voters, my county will turn blue.
Latest O'Keefe attack on Battleground Texas is bogus-It is not illegal to copy phone numbers
O'Keefe has another bogus video out claiming that Battleground Texas is violating the law by copying phone numbers from voter registration applications. I am not providing a link to the right wing sources citing this video because I do not want to give these sites any traffic. Some of the normal right wing nut job sites are making a big deal about this O'Keefe video including the freepers.
I am deputy voter registrar for my county and have attended a number of trainings by by the state party and my county election office. The claims by O'Keefe are bogus. Under Texas law, the phone number of an applicant is not confidential. Here the relevant Texas law from Texas Election Code Section 103.004(c) http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.13.htm
(c) The following information furnished on a registration application is confidential and does not constitute public information for purposes of Chapter 552, Government Code:
(1) a social security number;
(2) a Texas driver's license number;
(3) a number of a personal identification card issued by the Department of Public Safety;
(4) an indication that an applicant is interested in working as an election judge; or
(5) the residence address of the applicant, if the applicant is a federal judge or state judge, as defined by Section 13.0021, or the spouse of a federal judge or state judge, and included an affidavit with the registration application under Section 13.0021 or the registrar has received an affidavit submitted under Section 15.0215.
The part of the voter registration application with the confidential information is at the top and it is easy to put a cover page over a copier that allows one to copy the non-confidential information on a voter registration application. The telephone number of a potential voter is not part of the confidential information that is protected.
There is another code section that the O'Keefe idiots are misreading. Section 103.004(d) of the Texas election code provides that the county clerk or election administrator can not publish on the website a telephone number.
d) The voter registrar or other county official who has access to the information furnished on a registration application may not post the following information on a website:
(1) a telephone number;
(2) a social security number;
(3) a driver's license number or a number of a personal identification card;
(4) a date of birth; or
(5) the residence address of a voter who is a federal judge or state judge, as defined by Section 13.0021, or the spouse of a federal judge or state judge, if the voter included an affidavit with the application under Section 13.0021 or the registrar has received an affidavit submitted under Section 15.0215.
The deputy voter registrars who are with Battleground Texas are not posting on the Secretary of State or county website the information. The data in question is not being published anywhere.
I have been at training sessions by the state party and all democratic voter registrars know what to copy and what is confidential under Texas law.
If you see the latest O'Keefe video please ignore it or post the code section that shows that O'keefe is lying about Texas election law.
Texas Democrats-Please remember that Kesha Rogers is not a Democrat
Kesha is running for the Democratic nomination for US Senate. Kesha is not a Democrat but a member of the LaRouche cult http://www.juanitajean.com/2013/12/05/some-creepy-breaking-news/ Kesha's main goal is to impeach President Obama. i have met Kesha a couple of times and she scares me.
Here is a good picture of Kesha
Please do not let Kesha get into a runoff. She is dangerous and scary.
The DOJ is seeking documents from Texas legislators on Texas voter id law
Today the DOJ filed a motion seeking the production of the communications between members of the Texas legislature as to the real reasons for the adoption of SB 14. http://txredistricting.org/post/76368794502/doj-asks-court-in-voter-id-case-to-compel-texas-to
Lawyers for the Justice Department filed a motion with Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos this afternoon asking her to compel the State of Texas to turnover documents in the Texas voter ID case that DOJ said the state was improperly withholding.
The filing said that the documents being withheld by the state on grounds of privilege were “necessary … to ascertain the Texas legislature’s motivation for enacting SB 14” and included “communications concerning SB 14 and prior photographic voter identification proposals amongst Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, Speaker Joe Straus, Senator Troy Fraser (Senate sponsor of SB 14), Representative Patricia Harless (House sponsor of SB 14), and their top aides.”
DOJ said it had been told by lawyers for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott that the state was not willing to “conduct a search for documents unless each legislator expressly declined to assert a state legislative privilege.”
However, DOJ took issue with the state’s assertion of a broad legislative privilege, telling the court that:Defendants’ assertion of a state legislative privilege is inappropriate because the important federal interest in prohibiting intentional discrimination in voting and the uniquely probative nature of the withheld documents must overcome a privilege claim based merely on theoretical interference in state lawmaking.
The motion said that even if the court were to find that a state legislative privilege existed under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the balancing test used by the courts - including the three-judge panel in the Texas redistricting case in San Antonio - warranted turnover of the documents:When debating SB 14, key proponents did not speak to specific provisions included in or excluded from the bill or the unusual procedures used to enact the legislation and instead limited their public testimony to coordinated talking points. The documents and ESI [electronically stored information] being sought in discovery here would allow the Court to determine the credibility of legislative sponsors who refused to respond in public to questions posed by minority legislators. When Senator Royce West, a black state senator, asked Senator Troy Fraser whether SB 14 would ‘disproportionately affect African Americans and Hispanics,’ Senator Fraser merely replied, ‘I’m not advised.’ When Representative Rafael Anchía, an Hispanic state representative, asked Representative Patricia Harless whether she was aware of any studies conducted by a state agency ‘to project the number of voters that lack the required identification and what percentage of those voters are African American or Hispanic,’ she similarly responded, ‘No. Not advised.’
…
There is [ ] no alternative source for evidence of the contemporaneous and candid discussions of key legislative actors and their staff … [T]he public statements of legislative sponsors reflect repetitive, almost verbatim adherence to talking points and a refusal to engage publicly with the concerns of minority legislators.
…
The State of Texas, and specifically the Texas Legislature, plays a central role in this litigation. As a result, [State] Defendants have named legislators and their staff as prospective witnesses. When combined with the assertion of a state legislative privilege, this creates the potential for the improper use of a privilege as both a sword and a shield.
The motion also said the state was confusing legislative privilege with legislative immunity:The State’s position glosses over the critical distinction between legislative immunity and recognition of a state legislative privilege. Legislative immunity protects legislators against personal liability for their ‘legitimate legislative activity.’ By contrast, this is a case brought by the United States in which no personal liability is at stake, and individuals who are immune from suit may nonetheless be compelled to testify in a related case.
DOJ also challenged the state’s assertion of an attorney-client privilege:Defendants have withheld communications between multiple offices without establishing that an attorney employed by one legislator or official maintains an attorney-client privilege with a legislator who is not his or her employer. …
Defendants have also invoked the attorney-client privilege to withhold hundreds of pages of communications between individual legislators or legislative aides and attorneys for the Texas Legislative Council (TLC). Attorneys for the TLC, however, cannot maintain an attorney-client relationship with every one of the individual members of the Texas legislature. The TLC is a state legislative agency, and its statutory mandate does not authorize the provision of legal advice or the formation of an individual attorney-client relationship.
DOJ also said that a large number of the withheld documents seemed to concern policy or political rather than legal advice.
Here is a link to the actual brief filed by the DOJ https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gNlJmdjkzS1NRdEE/edit?pli=1 This is a well written brief and this will be key issue.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 04:58 PMNumber of posts: 145,079
