Eideard

Michael Morton in the middle

State District Judge Louis Sturns of Tarrant County will lead a court of inquiry into complaints of prosecutorial misconduct against former Williamson County prosecutor Ken Anderson, who won a murder conviction in 1987 against a defendant who spent 25 years in prison before he was exonerated by DNA evidence.

Michael Morton was convicted of fatally beating his wife in their Austin home in 1986. Attorneys say the wrongful conviction would not have happened if Anderson, who is now a Williamson County state district judge, had not deliberately withheld evidence that indicated Morton’s innocence.

“This is a historic moment for Texas justice,” said John Raley, the Houston lawyer who has worked pro bono on Morton’s case for seven years. “We are confident that Judge Sturns will handle this important case with the seriousness and probity demonstrated by Judge [Sid] Harle and [Texas Supreme Court Chief] Justice [Wallace] Jefferson…”

Last week, Harle recommended that Jefferson appoint such a court after he decided that there was probable cause to believe that Anderson should face charges of contempt of court, tampering with evidence and tampering with government records…

Morton contended during his 1987 trial that his wife’s killer must have entered their home after he left for work about 5:30 a.m. Anderson told the jury that Morton, who had no criminal history, beat his wife to death in a perverted rage because she denied him sex. Meanwhile, Morton’s lawyers say, Anderson was concealing evidence that pointed to the very scenario Morton described.

Morton was sentenced to life in prison but continued to maintain his innocence. Starting in 2005, he pleaded with the court to test DNA on a collection of evidence, including a bandanna found near his home shortly after the murder.

Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley fought the request for DNA testing, based on advice from Anderson. In 2010, though, a Texas court ordered the testing. The results showed Christine Morton’s blood on the bandanna mixed with the DNA of Mark A. Norwood, a felon who lived near the Mortons at the time.

A Williamson County grand jury indicted Norwood this month. Norwood’s DNA has also been identified on a pubic hair found at the scene of the similar murder in 1988 in Austin…

The Innocence Project probably could spend all their time in Texas and Illinois – and that would cover 99% of those convicted illegally of violent crimes. Do we have any states left where the justice system considers protecting the innocent as important as getting a high conviction rate?

The farm law being written by agricultural leaders in Congress — and the lobbyists who own them — would boost support rates for some crops and may remove caps on how much money growers collect in subsidies.

Three agricultural sources said that crops grown in the Midwest and Plains — corn, soybeans and wheat — would be covered by one subsidy plan, while cotton and rice, grown in the South, each would have a separate program.

This three-track plan is designed to shore up support from a broader number of farm-state lawmakers for a new approach to farm policy.

Leaders of the House and Senate Agriculture committees…hope to piggyback it onto a government-wide deficit bill in exchange for a $23 billion cut in their programs. It would bar any change in their plan and enact it a year ahead of schedule…

“There’s nothing good about any of this,” said agricultural economist Vince Smith of Montana State University after reviewing the expected crop subsidy changes.

Higher supports could encourage growers to over-produce, said Smith, and they could breach world trade rules against production-distorting subsidies…

Under their plan, corn, soybean and wheat growers would get federal payments when revenue from a crop was more than 15 percent below average, said a farm lobbyist. Crop insurance would cover deep losses. So-called marketing loans would put a floor on prices.

Cotton growers would operate with a higher marketing loan and revenue insurance policies. Target prices for rice and peanuts would be raised, an effective guarantee of revenue.

The package also could remove caps on subsidy payments.

What would happen if someone offered a bill before Congress guaranteeing income protection for working class Americans? Yes, I know that’s a silly question. The bill would never get out of committee much less face a vote before our manure pile of politicians.

Congress is more likely to vote for guaranteeing a healthy life for chickens before schoolchildren.

Less than a week after New York became the nation’s sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage, Rhode Island state lawmakers on Wednesday voted in favor of a bill that permits civil unions between gay and lesbian couples.

The measure, which passed the state Senate by a count of 21-16, is widely seen as a compromise intended to provide same-sex couples with added rights and benefits, while also preventing an expanded legal definition of marriage.

Gov. Lincoln Chafee, an independent, is expected to sign the bill into law, according to his spokesman, Michael Trainor.

…The law would take effect on July 1, making Rhode Island the fifth state in the union to allow civil unions between same-sex couples. Such unions are currently permitted in New Jersey and Illinois, and will be allowed in Delaware and Hawaii beginning January 1, 2012. Three West Coast states — California, Oregon and Washington — plus Nevada, also allow for “comprehensive domestic partnerships,” largely considered an equivalent to their civil union counterparts…

The legislation, which passed overwhelmingly in the state’s lower house on May 19, affords same-sex couples a host of new state tax breaks, health-care benefits and greater ease of inheritance…

The usual clot of religious nutballs and homophobes threw up their hands in a collective whine after passage.

This may not seem like a big problem for our urban-dwelling readers; but, here in Santa Fe County the only for-real hospital is owned by flunkies for the Catholic Church. They’ve already removed a number of procedures formerly allowed – on the basis of ideology and superstition.

Photos by P.K. Weis, REUTERS

U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (L) smiles next to her mother Gloria Giffords at TIRR Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston, the day after the launch of Endeavour and the day before her cranioplasty, in this May 17, 2011 photo released on her Facebook page Sunday.

Keep on rocking in the Free World.

BTW – under the latest revisions to gun law in Arizona, creeps like Jared Lee Loughner could still have purchased a gun.

There’s no reason to believe we have any more interest than usual to delve into questions of philosophy, sociology, science and politics, this weekend. But, I have several articles we’ve found worth examining, reflecting upon in our family circle – that I thought I’d post on the blog.

The term “military covenant” was introduced in Britain in 2000 and is used by political leaders and the media in discussing the informal pact that exists between those who volunteered to serve in the British military and the nation. Its purpose is to ensure that those who served will be treated with respect and receive the benefits they’ve earned.

As defined by the Ministry of Defense: “Soldiers are bound by service. The nature of service is inherently unequal: soldiers may have to give more than they receive. Ultimately, they may be called upon to make personal sacrifices — including death — in the service of the nation.

“In putting the needs of the Nation, the Army and others before their own, they forgo some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. So, at the very least, British soldiers should always expect the Nation and their commanders to treat them fairly, to value and respect them as individuals, and to sustain and reward them and their families…”

But what about a military covenant here in the United States? I think an argument can be made that one already exists, although in an unofficial capacity and without a title. Politicians speak at length about the need to take care of veterans, but that argument needs to be made and remade daily, and advocacy groups are forced to poke and prod in order to utilize benefits already earned and remind the public that we’re still fighting two (three?) wars. When British politicians speak about veterans’ issues, they invoke the military covenant, which conveys a stronger message than a lengthy argument as to why a specific veterans’ bill should be passed or an explanation of why it is good business to hire a veteran. The word “covenant” invokes images of a sacred trust, not just a simple contract. It also suggests that everyone is involved, since a covenant requires agreement between multiple parties. Members of the military are required to serve their nation honorably, and in return, the nation and public are required to ensure that those service members and veterans are treated fairly and with respect.

Taking a cue from the British, then, if we were to enact a military covenant, it should also be made into law…With this, if a veteran feels he or she is not receiving fair treatment, then the military covenant can be invoked as a reminder and to act as a benchmark. Initiatives would be examined to see if they are meeting the “spirit” of the military covenant.

Establishing a military covenant in the United States will not solve all problems faced by members of the military and veterans. Nor will it eliminate the civilian-military divide. But I think it would be a net plus in addressing both of these issues, and considering the scale, a serious look at enacting our own military covenant is worthwhile.

A great deal of my life’s involvement with the United States military has been in opposition to the wars they obediently marched off to. Because of one or another active involvement at the time, subsequent [ongoing] dialogue I enjoy with veterans of those and other anti-colonial, anti-imperial wars, I maintain a rapprochement with many who fought for our country. And, of course, being a geek of true geezer age, I’ve had many friends and family who fought in the war against fascism, World War 2 – the last just war in my lifetime.

It’s easy for me to support the covenant Don Gomez writes about – for professional soldiers as well as conscripts. My understanding of history and society recognizes a sense and purpose for the ethic and the law.

A jury awarded a pair of Los Angeles police officers $2 million Monday after determining that LAPD supervisors had retaliated against the officers for complaining about alleged traffic ticket quotas.

Howard Chan and David Benioff, both veteran motorcycle officers with the department’s West Traffic Division, sued the department in 2009, alleging that they had been punished with bogus performance reviews, threats of reassignment and other forms of harassment after objecting to demands from commanding officers that they write a certain number of tickets each day, according to the suit.

Ticket quotas are illegal under state law, since they can pressure police to write spurious tickets to meet the goal. The line between setting a quota and pushing officers to increase their productivity is a delicate one for field supervisors, who are often under pressure themselves to generate more citations.

“We’re very hopeful that this will put an end to fleecing motorists on the west side of Los Angeles,” said Benioff’s attorney, Gregory Smith. “Quotas are a direct violation of the vehicle code, and this case was about these officers being asked to break the law…”

Chan and Benioff said that supervisors ranked them against other officers based on the number of tickets they wrote and cars they impounded, which is also a violation of state law…

“You can’t violate the law to enforce the law,” Councilman Dennis Zine said. “You can’t mandate the number of tickets.

Illicit, illegal policies by police departments are all too common. Hardly any driver in the U.S. is ignorant of some local speed trap – or something like my favorite sleazy local practice of bumping up demands for tickets at the end of the fiscal year to balance the budget.

Here are a couple of conscientious coppers who lead a dangerous life as it is on the streets of L.A. – with the integrity to refuse to spend their time harassing ordinary motorists over comparatively minor offenses. So, they get their chops busted by desk jockeys.

Twitter users angered by the conviction of a man who threatened to blow up an airport in a Twitter joke showed support for him in their thousands today, thumbing their noses at the law by republishing the words that landed him in trouble.

Paul Chambers, a 27-year-old accountant, yesterday lost his appeal against his conviction and £1,000 fine for a comment he made in jest when he was concerned that he might miss a flight to Belfast.

“Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!” he wrote in January.

Chambers was controversially prosecuted under a law aimed at nuisance calls – originally to protect “female telephonists at the Post Office” in the 1930s – rather than specific bomb hoax legislation, which requires stronger evidence of intent.

Civil liberties lawyers criticised his conviction, as did the Twitter community, which reacted with a vengeance to his failed appeal today.

Under the hashtag #IAmSpartacus – a reference to the film in which Spartacus’s fellow gladiators show their solidarity with him by each proclaiming “I am Spartacus” – thousands of people have copied Chambers’s original message.

As a result of the show of support for him, #IAmSpartacus was the most popular worldwide subject being referred to on Twitter at the time of this posting.

And I am repeating Chambers Tweet at my own Twitter site.

Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!

The Federal Supreme Court in the United Arab Emirates has ruled that a man can beat his wife and young children as long as no marks are left, The National newspaper reported…

“Although the (law) permits the husband to use his right (to discipline), he has to abide by the limits of this right,” it quoted Chief Justice Falah al-Hajeri as having written in a ruling released in a court document on Sunday.

The court ruled that a man who “slapped and kicked his daughter and slapped his wife” violated his “right” under sharia, or Islamic law, to discipline his wife and children, as he beat his wife too severely and his daughter, aged 23, was too old for such discipline, the newspaper said.

The UAE is less conservative than some Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, where women cannot drive and need a male guardian’s permission to travel.

But Islamic religious law remains a part of the legal framework in the UAE, which also has secular laws.

I’m just posting this for the record. The backwardness of theocracies – and especially those superstitious lands where something as archaic as Shari’a law is practiced – is recognized by most educated adults.

Just one more example of someplace I will never choose to live and work.

To the rites of middle-age passage, some families are adding another: buying marijuana for aging parents.

Bryan, 46, a writer who lives in Illinois, began supplying his parents about five years ago, after he told them about his own marijuana use. When he was growing up, he said, his parents were very strict about illegal drugs.

“We would have grounded him,” said his mother, who is 72.

But with age and the growing acceptance of medical marijuana, his parents were curious. His father had a heart ailment, his mother had dizzy spells and nausea, and both were worried about Alzheimer’s disease and cancer. They looked at some research and decided marijuana was worth a try.

Bryan, who like others interviewed for this article declined to use his full name for legal reasons, began making them brownies and ginger snaps laced with the drug. Illinois does not allow medical use of marijuana, though 14 states and the District of Columbia do. At their age, his mother said, they were not concerned about it leading to harder drugs, which had been one of their worries with Bryan.

“We have concerns about the law, but I would not go back to not taking the cookie and going through what I went through,” she said, adding that her dizzy spells and nausea had receded. “Of course, if they catch me, I’ll have to quit taking it.”

RTFA. Anecdotal, examples of this new phenomenon, sometimes humorous – as you would expect.

Glad to see they’re baking the goodies. That’s what I would do in similar circumstances. It’s been 51 years since I stopped smoking.

This will be their next requirement

Radio broadcasters and music labels are seeking to legally mandate FM radio reception as a feature in all consumer mobile devices in an effort to expand the market for radio.

A report by Nate Anderson of the Ars “Law & Disorder” blog notes that competing interests in radio and studio industry groups have sided on a proposal to force hardware makers to add FM radio chips to mobile phones and other consumser devices…

Negotiations between the two trade groups have found agreement on a plan that requires radio stations to pay new, limited performance rights fees to the studios annually, but that plan is tied to the ability of the two groups to pass laws forcing mobile device makers to add FM radio features to their devices…

Apple hasn’t commented on the plan, but the Consumer Electronics Association is strongly opposed to the idea. “The back room scheme of the [National Association of Broadcasters] and RIAA to have Congress mandate broadcast radios in portable devices, including mobile phones, is the height of absurdity,” CEA president Gary Shapiro said in the report, adding that such a move is “not in our national interest.”

The Performance Rights Act currently before Congress is at the center of the controversy. “The performance royalty legislation voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee does not include this onerous and backward-looking radio requirement,” Shapiro said, indicating that the CEA wants the bill to continue without any FM radio requirements being mandated.

“Rather than adapt to the digital marketplace,” Shapiro said, “NAB and RIAA act like buggy-whip industries that refuse to innovate and seek to impose penalties on those that do.”

These associations are wholly composed of the most reactionary and predatory sharks in the world of entertainment. Music, discussion, any of the content falling within their purview is only a commodity to be regulated to produce the most profit.

The rights of consumers are as meaningless in their 19th minds as concepts like progress and ethics.