Via Ace, via Weasel Zippers, via Beltway Confidential.
Seems our AG has a plan instruct pastors on how they might legally participate in the upcoming election without losing tax exempt status. Well there are a lot of ways to slice that pineapple on the analysis side. Here's my cut.
If he was sure of winning he wouldn't be nearly as concerned about the issue. So my cut is that AG Holder, genuinely concerned about what another AG might do, wants the pastors to keep it inside the box. Which precipitates another conclusion actually. Means seem to be very flexible for the administration, especially for AG Holders justice department. I think if a little extra zeal from the alter would make the difference that it certainly would be encouraged. So depending on the content of the brief, which I surely hope gets leaked, this indicates to me, that he may not be anticipating a close contest; at least one not close enough to pull out the stops for, and he is trying to conserve his political assets for the future. But like I said, that all depends on what the content of the brief entails. This may be the beginning of the stop pulling.
Either way. It shows a very real fear of losing the election.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Update: Blogger Unity Day has taken off; See the title bar Blogs for more info. Additionally, for us small blog operators in the Horde, AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is giving link love.
Some will claim that the public records, or at least parts of it that are inconvenient are not topics of open conversation. I vehemently disagree with that position and believe that open discussion of the public record is critical to the health of our free Republic, and today I've found an interesting read for those willing to slog through a bit of legaleeze, and some past interesting news events. You'll note that the cited case was presided over by very notable Judge Posner. The following are short snippets I emphatically encourage you to click through and read the whole article/opinion on both links, and to form your own educated opinion, preferably buttressed by supplemental research you personally perform. They are submitted here quoted without further comment.
"This gave the bombing investigators a break because Kimberlin had violated federal law by wearing the DoD insigina. They obtained a search warrant to inspect the car he'd driven to the print shop. In the trunk they found timers just like the ones used for the bombs, and they found chemical traces of Tovex, the explosive used in the bombs. Now investigators felt convinced Kimberlin was their man, but they didn't pursue charges yet because they needed a stronger case."
"675 F.2d 866 (1982)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Brett C. KIMBERLIN, Defendant-Appellant.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued February 26, 1982.
Decided April 13, 1982.
867*867 Nile Stanton, Indianapolis, Ind., for defendant-appellant.
John Thar, Asst. U. S. Atty., Indianapolis, Ind., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CUMMINGS, Chief Judge, POSNER, Circuit Judge, and BARTELS, Senior District Judge.[*]
POSNER, Circuit Judge.
This appeal from the denial of a federal prisoner's collateral attack on his sentence requires us to consider the current validity and scope of the concurrent sentence doctrine and the power of a judge other than the sentencing judge to entertain a collateral attack on the sentence.
The appellant, Brett Kimberlin, was tried on an indictment charging him with 34 counts of violating various federal criminal statutes. The jury acquitted him on Count 25, convicted him on Counts 26-34, and hung on Counts 1-24. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison on Counts 26-34. The motion in issue here challenges the legality of the sentence but not of the conviction, which has been affirmed by this court. United States v. Kimberlin, 673 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir.1981).
Kimberlin has meanwhile been retried on the hung counts, convicted, and sentenced to 50 years to run concurrently with the 12 years imposed in the previous sentence, the one at issue on this appeal.
SNIP . . .
We think Judge Steckler had jurisdiction to consider Kimberlin's "Objection and Motion to Reconsider," even though he was not the sentencing judge; jurisdiction resides in the court, here the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, rather than the individual judge. But Kimberlin was not entitled to the relief he sought from Judge Steckler, whose order denying that relief is therefore