Free Republic

Why did he want her dead?

Several years ago, Oregon's Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation trademarked the name "Church of the Creator". On November 19, 2002, following a year of legal battles between the two organizations, U.S. District Court Judge Joan H. Lefkow issued an injunction prohibiting the World Church of the Creator from using any variation of the name -- including using the words "Church" and "Creator" in the same phrase -- in any manner. Hale was ordered to turn his ownership of churchofthecreator.com to the Foundation. Hale refused to comply and on December 13, Judge Lefkow ordered him to show why he shouldn't be held in contempt. http://crime.allinfoabout.com/old/hale/trial.html

This explanation of the trademark case actually misses a pretty critical step. Judge Lefkow actually ruled in Hale's favor the first time around. On appeal, the circuit court reversed and only then did Judge Lefkow rule against Hale's organization. When Hale didn't comply with the order to cease and desist, Judge Lefkow held him in contempt.

Not that this has any particular relevance to the commission of a murder.

I live in the northern Chicago 'burbs, and when I saw the headline of the tribune (something along the lines of "Federal Judge's Husband, Mother Slain") I immediately knew it had to be Judge Lefkow's family. I never appeared before Judge Lefkow, but was still completely stunned by this. Unbelievable.

Actually, its the 6th Circuit that has been said affirmed the district court.

Way too confusing right now, and I'm a lawyer to boot!

Other thread is at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1265607/posts

Sorry for the lack of hyperlink.

This is the "eternal" question. I looked at a post I made on this subject from December 2000 and I'm posting it below. I don't think there's much that's changed over the last year that has changed this. I was talking to a jewish friend yesterday who's going to vote for Kerry, despite having a very right-wing republican father. For her, this election is about more than Israel or terrorism. She's voting for Kerry because she buys into the line that GWB is bad for civil liberties, and without civil liberties, the jews won't survive in America. But, perhaps the biggest reason she'll vote for Kerry is that she "can't stand" George Bush. Since I just can't stand Kerry, it's hard to argue with her visceral reaction.

In any event, the 12/2000 post is below:

Jews are not one-dimentional. Jews don't vote democratic, as one person said, because "daddy" told them so. Jews don't vote democratic because they are looking at FDR and thinking about the holocaust. Most jews vote democratic because those are the belief that they carry.

To be sure, and as I've said elsewhere, I'm one of the only jewish republicans I know (other than my mother and father). My wife and all my friends are democratic. Why? For lots of reasons.

Most jews are liberal, not inthe sense of democratic liberal, but in the sense of individual freedoms and entitlements. Most jews are pro-choice. Most jews have a deep care for tsdaka (ie, charity towards others) which the republican party doesn't get across. Many jews believe that "evangelical" christianity is an anathma (sp?), particularly in that many christians have always told jews that they will burn in hell for not believing in Christ. Many of these christians would be labeled conservative republicans. Many republicans believe that their should be prayer in school. Most jews realize that means *christian* prayer in school, and prior to Lieberman, shunned public displays of religion in public political or social life while preferring religion to be part of the home, not the school.

As for the argument that the republicans have been good for israel, there are two issues: 1) most jews consider themselves "jewish americans" as opposed to "american jews". Certainly, neither consider themselves "israelis". 2) IMHO, James Baker and GHWB did some very negative things for Israel, particularly in respect to forcing Shamir to come to "peace" terms that were detrimental to Israel, and some may consider to be the part of the problem we have today. Personally, my feeling is that most recent administrations have merely given lip service to Israel. Let's see is W *really* does move the embassy to Jerusalem.

There are many other reasons why jews sincerely belong to the democrats. Some from deep socialogical roots, others are a reaction to threats they see from many republicans. Personally, most of my beliefs follow closely with what the republicans stand for. However, I do think that many republicans, however inclusive the party tries to be, will continue to "lump" in jews with other minority groups that they are not a part of. There is NO simple reason why jews are democrats. For a group of people so against "spinning", its odd to me that that's exactly what some people are doing. Trying to give a 3 sentence explanation as to why jews are democrats is exactly the type of "spinning/sound bite" that we accuse others of doing.

Nobody should take this email as a flame or attack. I'm merely trying to convey a different point of view. Even this relatively long email is simplistic to some degree. That being said, it isn't appropriate to attempt to lump jews together as some homogeneous group all having the same reasons for doing what they are doing, or not having the brains to determine for themselves what they should believe in and just doing what their mommies and daddies told them.

145 Posted on 12/10/2000 08:50:11 PST by kazander

Glad to help. All national fraternity presidents (I am one) and national executive directors should be aware of this. PanHel is involved with this too. From what I understand, this is part of the larger charitable giving act that is tied up in conference committee.

The text of the Collegiate Housing and Infrastructure Act of 2003 was attached to the Charitable Giving Act of 2003 (H.R. 7), which passed the House on September 17, 2003. The Senate version of charitable giving legislation is called CARE (S.476) and passed the Senate in April of 2003, before the Collegiate Housing and Infrastructure Act was introduced in that chamber. Thus, CARE does not include language on collegiate housing improvements like its House counterpart does. The House and Senate next must schedule a conference of key leaders to resolve the differences between their respective versions of charitable giving legislation. This conference has been delayed since September due to political concerns that have little to do with the merits of the charitable giving bill. There is currently a major lobbying effort underway by the charitable giving community to pressure Congressional leaders, especially Senate Democrats, to allow the conference on this legislation to proceed. If Congress fails to pass charitable giving legislation this year, a new Congress will begin work in January, and we will have to begin the legislative process all over again.

Other pending legislation: Fire Safety (H.R. 1613 and S. 620)

The Student Housing Fire Safety Act of 2003 (H.R. 1613) would provide $250 million a year for colleges, universities, fraternities and sororities to make housing infrastructure improvements to their facilities. The bill guarantees 10% of the authorized funding (up to $25 million a year) for the exclusive use of fraternities and sororities. The College Fire Prevention Act (S.620) is the old version of the fire safety bill and was reintroduced in the Senate by Senator John Edwards (D-NC). This version of the legislation provides $80 million a year for colleges, universities, fraternities and sororities to make housing infrastructure improvements to their facilities. There is no set aside of funds for specific use by fraternities and sororities.

Current Status: The House bill’s primary sponsor in the House is Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH/Delta Sigma Theta). The House bill had 67 sponsors, primarily Democrats, and many of these sponsors joined due to our efforts last year. There are currently three other co-sponsors of the Senate bill: Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), and Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS/Pi Kappa Alpha).

For the past two years (or so), the National Interfraternity Conference has been actively lobying Congress to pass legislation that would make it much easier (from a cost perspective) for fraternities to retrofit fraternity housing with sprinkler systems.

The bill (S.1246/HR.1523) is called the Collegiate Housing and Infrastructure Act of 2003 and is currently in committee in both the house and senate.

This bill allows for national educational foundations (501(c)(3) organizations) to take tax deductible gifts and give grants to a local 501(c)(3) organization for any housing or infrastructure improvement that directly benefits a student organization. If passed, the bill would allow for all fraternal educational foundations to use tax deductible gifts to make grants to local housing corporations for housing and infrastructure improvements (such as fire/life safety improvements, a new roof, new furniture, etc.). The bill applies to all student organizations, not just fraternal organizations, and it is anticipated many religious organizations will be able to use this tax change for improvements to their campus facilities.

Not that this makes any difference for the guys at ATO, but this is something that fraternities in general are concerned about.

According to SCOTUSBlog, who is blogging via blackberry from the Court, the vote was 5-2-2. I don't know who is in the minority or what the -2-2 means. Apparently, Ginsburg was dissenting from the Bench.

The Fourth Circuit is not ordering that he be given access to RB and KSM. The decision agrees that its in the Government's national security authority to decline to produce these witnesses for direct questioning. However, the Government has to provide "substitutions", which are summaries of statements made by KSM and RB to the defendant. The Gov't was already willing to do this, but the district court said the summaries weren't "reliable" (legal term of art) as evidence that would be submitted to the jury. The 4th Circuit said "wrong". The district court should not have rejected the compromise of presenting written summaries of the statements to the jury. The 4th Circuit said that summaries are appropriate, and gave the district court instructions on how to craft the summaries and how to instruct the jury concerning them as well.

It is a bit confusing, I know. But the key here is that the government doesn't have to produce the actual bad guys, it can use evidence refering to Sept. 11 (which the district court ordered them not to do as a sanction), and the government can seek the death penalty (again, the district court sanction said no death penalty because you refused to produce RB & KSM).

Dog said: "They told the district court there are options.....figure it out."

Actually, they are telling the district court that the defense can use summaries of the statements, and the district court shouldn't have summarily rejected the Gov't's attempt to use these summaries. The fourth circuit also gave the district court a bit of a roadmap to use to figure out the proper way to present the summaries to the jury.

Looks like the Fourth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, said that the Moussaoui defense is entitled to use summaries of statements made by KSM and RB, but neither Moussaoui nor any of his counsel would be able to interview KSM or RB directly. Also, the Court reinstated the Gov't ability to seek the death penalty (by vacating the district court's sanction order).

No. This is the appeal of Judge Brinkema's decision to allow Moussaoui access to KSM and Ramzi Binalshibh.

I have no idea what the opinion truly says yet. But it is big news. Looks like its a very complicated decision.

From spaceflight.com:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/030707impacttest/

"The foam was fired at the wing mockup at roughly 775 feet per second, or about 530 mph, at an impact angle of 22 degrees. That's higher than the impact angle during Columbia's launch. But by adjusting the impact angle, engineers were able to account for rotational energy imparted by the tumbling foam. Hubbard said the impact imparted about a ton of force to the RCC panel. All of the test parameters, taken together, represented an "average" set of conditions. The actual impact could have been somewhat worse or somewhat less violent. But the hole that was blown in RCC 8 leaves little doubt the foam strike caused the breach responsible for Columbia's destruction."

Bush's remarks at the Jordanian King photo op, as usual, were taken out of context. Check out the actual remarks that are now posted at the whitehouse.gov/news site. What struck me as particularly noteworthy was the King's language discussing *both* Israel & the "palestinians". Usually, the Arab leaders, even in Washington, are fairly lopsided in their statements.

Northbrook is not near, or on the same train line as, Des Plains.

I actually take the commuter train (metra) home to work on this same railroad track. Sounds like its just some dude trying to beat the train.