Ninth Circuit Denies Voting Rights To Prisoners

It was announced in the mainstream media that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned a prior panel ruling (?) which had found the State of Washington's prohibition banning voting by felons unconstitutional.

The case apparently was grounded and brought as a "racial discrimination" case, however, and the basis for the decision appears politics also just may have been a factor in this recent ruling.

After all, with the exception of two states in the nation all have some provisions barring convicted felons from the election process. Some more stringent than others, and even a few that actually prohibit felons from voting for life (forget "letting the punishment fit the crime," or after the punishment has been handed down and fulfilled "records" being then wiped clean upon petition for felons, and automatically for misdemeanor offenses).

Seems to me maybe the lawyers for the case might have missed using that other Constitutional provision, the "privileges and immunities clause," that also might have been another legal avenue to travel. I mean, two states do not remove voting rights for felons, so aren't those prisoners getting a "privilege" that those prisoners in other states do not, since the buzz words also being used by the spin doctors on this one is that voting is a "privilege" in this country, and not a "right?"

Huh?

In a government of the people, by the people, for the people it most certainly is a "right" in this writer's view, but then we have also quite clearly lost any measure of having a representative government due to just such wacko court decisions as these, as of late, all the way to the top branch in that last Citizens United "corporate" case brought by a somewhat "commercial" entity, or perhaps dare I say, federally funded through its "educational" focus?

I mean, foreigners now are exerting their influence in the hallowed halls of Washington more and more, both through their lobbying efforts and also through their campaign donations to those "bundlers."

The court also cited a "precedence" from an 1886 case, and strange that this "progressively liberal" court would hold with a case while bypassing the intent of the founders and their reverence for just what type of government they were creating, and which actually had to do more so with capital offenses in which jury trials actually were given in those days, and cases were not plea bargained, or those jailhouse appeals denied as regularly as they appear to be more and more then thereafter.

Many times, for budgetary reasons.

I wonder if Washington State has privatized its state jails as Arizona has?

I mean, the fewer inmates, the less those Wall Street penal conglomerates get for their budgets and shareholders, and the less the states also get from the federal government in order to also run some of those state prisons. This is, after all, another emerging industry creating all those jobs for those homeland security graduates and ex-military primarily.

Is it any wonder that more and more of those pro se jailhouse appeals are getting either denied, or "lost," as was the case in Louisiana several years ago in a published article which was written after a Clerk of the Court committed suicide presumably due to his guilt over having been a participant in such a court process for at least a decade.

And while Arizona's prisons have been privatized right and left supposedly due to "budgetary" constraints, I just wonder where all those monies also are coming from in order to upgrade and build all those new jails especially with the budget being of such major concerns to a great many states these past five years, while the most monies that went in that stimulus actually did go to the states for such purposes. I guess this is another "outsourcing" of governmental powers and duties to private industry in these now "commercial" prisons once again that will have their bottom line profits most in mind in running them, and with little state oversight whatsoever as was recently in the headlines.

I mean in this "ends justifies the means" style governing now on every level, the more and more that minor offenses are criminalized which don't involve loss of property or injury, the more "jobs" it creates, and dividends for those shareholders who are invested in those commercial ventures at this point.

This is the mentality that seems to be running rampant at the city, county, state and federal levels more and more.

Just think how much crime stimulates the economy, and creates jobs. Construction jobs, security and prison guards for the returning military and homeland security grads, the "tech" industry for all those cameras and surveillance devices, identity theft protection companies and jobs, insurance company profits for expanded coverages then needed on homeowners and auto insurance due to the rising auto theft rates in most state throughout the nation - why it does appear that it is a major stimulus for quite a few sectors of Wall Street.

In fact, if there wasn't crime at all, just think how many more would be lining up at the social service offices right now.

Maybe that is also a factor in this economic depression.

The need for more criminals in order to stimulute also the global economy, Wall Street, and the U.S. economy - after a theft, you have to go out and buy something to replace what was taken, after satsifying that deductible, that is. After your car is stolen or broken into, you need to satsify that deductible when making those repairs, or buying tha new (or used) car to replace it.

Maybe this is why more and more in local communities there are no neighborhood patrols really much anymore in residential communities, since that would affect and impact the economy and jobs of those private security companies too, although they have no real legal authority to do anything really other than place a call to the local police force if the worst should happen and there should be a property crime in their jurisdiction.

It just might not be the budget at all If there were regular neighborhood patrols once again there just might be less crime, maybe, and thus less jobs and profits for those on the "crime does pay" gravy train. Or if the economy actually did improve significantly.

But with lesser offenses, this country IS supposed to be the "land of the free" - so just why has there been such a progressive move to criminalize more and more petty offenses, offenses in which there is no direct victim such as many of those minor "possession" charges on marijuana use, not sale, and others. You can spend jail time even for misdemeanor offenses at this point in most states throughout the nation.

Many of the even public misdemeanor jails are charging inmates for their own meals, or confiscating their wages then from any work they do for the "privatized" jailhouse general stores upon their return. I mean being in jail itself, deprived of your freedom and separated from society for your crime, was SUPPOSED to be THE punishment for major offenses.

Those incarcerated, especially those felonies not involving harm or injury to another, are or were taxpayers - but it appears when handing down their double, triple and even quadruple penalties for even minor felony offenses, the states are forgetting the common law provisions on civil and criminal crimes in this country. And most aren't even "convicted" but are plea bargained also for "budgetary" needs by those public defenders.

Letting the punishment fit the crime has been lost in the process. And even giving those juries the instructions that they also have not only the duty to hand down their verdict on the evidence presented, but also the duty to examine the law and punishments attached by statute also as to legality in their view as representatives of "the people," and not "the state."

Although even obtaining a jury of your peers is almost impossible, since juries are now profiled by the lawyers involved, or are comprised of citizens that truly are not "peers" of the defendant at all - many of whom are themselves city, state, county or federal workers who are paid from some of those fines and fees attached to those crimes - especially the minor offenses.

And yet, there is a concerted move also progressively to continue to attempt to remove trials by jury for more and more offenses even. With the state acting as both the charging party, and jury in more and more "bench" trials for misdemeanor criminal offenses, and with even traffic fines at all time highs requiring most to enter into "payment plans" at added costs even over and above those fines, which should be a clue right there as to the levels at which they are now set. The very definition of fascism, actually.

So how is removal of voting privileges in any manner letting the punishment fit the crime, unless it truly is the highest offense within our Constitution.

High treason.

I mean spies, and those in high political office should not be afforded that "right" when by their actions they have shown that it is not this country or its Constitution which guides their actions, or to whom they owe their fealty.

I wonder, just how many in Washington that are highly publicized casting their votes even while running for office, should have their ballots challenged?

Maybe what we need at this point is a recount ever decade, rather than a census.

I just wonder how many "foreigners" and "party politicians, including those "mavericks" of both mainstream political parties whose political leanings have nothing to do with Constitutional government, votes would then be thrown out.

Another ruling by the Ninth that appears to be following British law at the time of the American Revolution contrary to those Bill of Rights primarily and fundamentally, and not U.S. true law at all, as this ruling to this writer flies in the face of the entire intent of America's founders in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Weighed against the increasing access to the U.S. Courts by foreign individuals for even prosecution matters not to mention their appeals paid for through Americans taxes for those numerous appeals before deportation for true capital offenses, who are not even American citizens, speaks volumes in just how far off this recent decision is as by this court especially, as opposed to Constitutional intent in the entire foundation of America's intended form of government.

Whose "prisoner" voices should be heard most of all really, as those who have been many times "politically" convicted due to "budgetary" restraints, or whose crimes have been criminalized which under the common law are merely civil crimes without a clear "victim" to begin with.

While those pardons are given to high level Wall Street officials whose "direct victims" were literally hundreds or thousands of individuals in property theft, rather than banning them from any further employment in the financial sector for at least a good many years, the pot smokers and low level DUI offenders under those three strike rules are banned from the political and voting process, or those plea bargained lower felony "civil" victimless offenders "for life" in a few states?

Or how about those foreign drug dealers and auto thieves who are peddling their wares to America's youth most of all or stealing cars cross borders, who then are afforded to gain "standing" somehow in the U.S. courts and turn around and sue for "emotional distress," as what occurred by at least one foreigner after having been shot in the rear by the American border patrol, to then profit from their crime?

San Francisco, your "heart" seems to be misplaced, along with this Court's fundamental understanding of Constitutional government.

Bank of America's Spin Cycle and Politics

It was announced today with great fanfare in the mainstream media that Bank of America, the "largest" bank in the United States, has called a halt to its ongoing foreclosures.

However, there appears to be many, many caveats to this story.

First, the foreclosures are simply going to be halted in order to "review" those that are now in the process in simply the 23 states where judicial review of foreclosures is required. That eliminates any "saves" for those state where non-judicial foreclosures are afforded (illegally, but what the heck? If there is ANY equity in those homes, see the provisions on "life, liberty or property" in the Constitution for a clue on what the legal process should be, and for jury trials on deprivation of property if there is actually ANY equity, including offsets in all those upfront junk fees and costs).

Which maybe be good news to those homeowners in 23 states, but does nothing for those in many of the hardest hit.

Second, this review was publicized heavily right before the election, which makes such announcement suspect at best, and also was facilitated due to the fact that the housing market isn't improving under this Administration as with the last, and it has been claimed that one executive of this bank admitted that she had initiated over 8,000 foreclosures last month alone without even reading any of the documents.

Although, of course, most of those loans were Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac loans merely sold by Bank of America to homeowners with those usurous and banker friendly terms included.

Third, since most of that "paper" (contracts) was rebundled and resold over the global exchange due to another unconstitutional Act of Congress affording these banks to so do in order to "stimulate" the global economy at the Americans expense once again ultimately, for many after that bailout there is actually no underlying debt to many of those mortgages, at least to the banks anyway.

And I have always wondered as a Constitution believing American, how those banks could resell those mortgages to even other banks to begin with without one of the parties to that contracts consent. That flies in the face of the common law of contracts as intended in this country from the outset.

And those mere "disclosure" provisions simply have become nothing more than a license to steal, or renegotiate those contracts by those banking entities almost at will even before the ink is dried on those closing documents.

Those global investors MAYBE may be still out some cash, but I doubt that since many foreign entities and foreign banks were also included in that bailout too, of course, then billed to OUR deficit.

Many of whom, of course, were savvy investors to begin with and some even looking for tax write-offs on their massive wealth. I mean how many average Joes in this country can invest in banking and financial stocks, even at their lower market values now?

Corporations and union pension plans, maybe, but not your Average American.

This "announcement" most of all seems like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.

Of course, the realtors also got into the act, with an agent from San Diego posturing about how this move just might make those "lining up" to buy these cheap properties take a step back.

I mean, the original owner just might have been ousted illegally, and just think of all those lawyers that would then be needed to sort this all out in such an event as the original owner still having a legal claim to the property he maybe has lived in for ten, twenty or even almost thirty years (since these "creative" adjustable rate mortgages have been in existence since at least the early 1980's, and there have been two other recessions since then meaning many also just might still have seconds also on them in order to pay their assundry increasing costs of ownership and debts from those years).

What timing! What publicity! What a political maneuver!

I went into the mall in a community in the West that has kiosks set up by several real estate agencies hawking those foreclosed properties to the public. In over an hour and a half observing while I was visiting a social service agency that has taken up residency in that same mall after the retailer folded, I saw only one person even stop at the kiosk.

Too many have been burned this time, and this is the third market manipulation in the housing industry (or fourth, I've lost count) in my lifetime. Don't you think that those that have been burned, and are standing now in the social services offices have warned their posterity that "if it looks too good to be true, it most likely is."

Or instructed them to simply run the other way?

I mean all those new carbon and health care "taxes" are also coming up, so just how can you budget for those expenses, and still afford all those closing costs?

Not to mention, the next cyclical meltdown in less than 15 years, if history serves. And those 50+ page loan docs now even dictating "useage" and also repair standards and such, not to mention having to send at least your first born out to work should you miss simply one of those payments, if you have any equity in those properties. The hatchet will fall that much quicker for the bottom line profits of those banks.

So don't even think of taking out one of those 15 year "fixed" notes, either.

Nothing is fixed, except the roulette wheel in the 21st century housing market.

Washington, States Now Even Outsourcing Government Jobs?

Recently I had another wake-up call and experience that essentially proves that the increased outsourcing and insourcing of American jobs spreads across both political aisles, all campaign promises and representations to the contrary.

An acquaintance of mine on the federal Food Stamp Program, which is merely "administered" through state and local social service offices failed to receive their benefits for the month which were scheduled to be deposited on the 2nd (the program makes the distributions according to the last digit of the recipients social security number). This individual then attempted to contact the number printed on the plastic food stamp debit card issued through Quest, which apparently has this enormous government contract in a great many states.

Dialing the number printed on the card simply provided a menu of options, none of which addressed the failure to receive the benefits due. So instead called another number printed on the card for lost or stolen cards, and waited through the "choose your language" option until the "rotary" dial option was given which indicated at that point they would be transferred to a customer service representative. This took about five minutes to get through all the menu options.

The individual who then answered the phone requested a social security number and birthdate "for identification purposes" and had a heavy East Indian accent. A request was then made by my acquaintance as to just where this call center was located assisting Americans and the retailers printed on the card. The Quest representative then declined to provide the location of their offices "for security purposes," however my acquaintance then made a second call to the center, and another individual with an East Indian accent then also answered the phone and requested the same information (social security number and birthdate) from them.

So apparently, our federal food stamp program is now, through Quest, being "administered" through call centers located in New Delhi?

Apparently, this question also was one in which the representative wasn't authorized to answer, and simply then directed my acquaintance to go to the local state social service office to then inquire as to why the hold-up, which was ony discovered after they had gone to the grocery store and found out that the benefits were not available that were due to be deposited on the 2nd.

So outsourcing even those call center jobs for social service benefits, which essentially makes these East Indian call center representatives employees paid with U.S. taxpayer funds is now SOP?

This week it was also announced that Mayor Bloomberg, the enthusiastic supporter of the Islamic Center proposed to be built within a few blocks of Ground Zero in Manhattan, has also joined the Obama Administration's fight on childhood (and adult) obesity apparently.

He has proposed that food stamp benefits be further restricted in at least New York to "healthy" foods (which I guess the state is going to hire a dietician to judge), and further bans placed on just what those food stamp benefits can be spent on over and above the bans on cigarettes, alcohol, and household products.

Soda (or pop in the West) was listed as his primary beef with the benefits program in eliminating "sugary" drinks from those individuals on the welfare and food stamp rolls.

I wonder how many martinis the Mayor drinks at some of those conventions and fundraisers?

Mr. Bloomberg, doesn't New York City have enough other problems with a little more priority rather than addressing the dietary choices of the homeless and jobless in that state who must go through reams of paperwork in order to simply have food?

Taxation without representation, at this point in America's history, doesn't even begin to describe the level of corruption originating quite clearly on the East Coast, which has now definitely spread to the West.

I'm not real comfortable having an East Indian, or any foreigner, in possession of my social security number. I mean, I doubt that in a mere seven years when I "officially" will qualify there will be anything left at all given the rate this Administration and the last dipped into those sums, while denying through this "regulatory" body benefits to many homeless and jobless "over 55" year olds already that have been majorly impacted by this American depression, which social security when initiated was clearly meant to provide during that first depression, but still...

And if I am wrong as to the location of this call center and it is in the U.S. merely preferring to hire either foreigners or new immigrants, just what does that say also about the "corporate" priorities running rampant and increasing in their hiring practices?

I mean, two out of two calls?

When even the U.S. government contractors paid with taxpayer sums are not "hiring American" is it any wonder that the U.S. economy is not rebounding?

Hello, Washington?