Friday, August 31, 2007

The Limbo Rock Continues

Talk Left reports that Norman Hsu has posted a $2 million bail bond, and adds:

He went to court with his California attorney and his publicist. He's got a great lawyer, James Brosnahan. Brosnahan's last high profile client was "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh.

Why am I not surprised? Nothing follows.

14 Comments:

Blogger Charles said...

Captain Cook's claim questioned by coin find:

An archeologist claims to have found a 16th century European coin in a swamp on Australia’s east coast, raising new questions about whether Captain James Cook was beaten to the continent by the Spanish or Portuguese.

8/31/2007 09:24:00 PM  
Blogger Charles said...

The problem here in the USA is that we're not really getting immigrants anymore but rather colonists. They're coming from Islamic countries, from china, from latin america. You name it.

But there are days when I'm not so sure that I blame the new comers.... as there is not so much to emmigrate into.

8/31/2007 09:47:00 PM  
Blogger Charles said...

Enemies of America, in a Courtroom Near You
Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 31 August 2007 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

Posted on 08/31/2007 7:49:53 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob

I don’t often write about law. It’s been one of my professions for 35 years, but I have to admit the subject is boring. I don’t often accuse anyone else of being “un-American” because there’s a lot of leeway for opinion in a free country. Today I drop both restrictions. The subject is Hazleton, Pennsylvania, and the ACLU.

The ACLU filed today (Friday) a petition for Hazleton to pay it $2.4 million in fees because ACLU lawyers persuaded a US District judge to strike down a series of local ordinances. Those laws intended to make it difficult for illegal aliens to live and work in that town. A precipitating event for passage of the ordinances was the murder of a local resident by an illegal alien.

Update on that: the murderer was released and is to be deported. The witness who gave the police the murder weapon and described a confession, was “accidentally” deported and will not return. So, the murderer skates. The ACLU publicly praised the dismissal of the murder charges.

The ACLU fee petition says of the case, “Hazleton has used this Court as its laboratory. Defendant's experimentation over the past year comes at a price.”

Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta noting that his City has a total annual budget of only $7.9 million, calls the petition “absurd.” He added, “It illustrates the circus the ACLU brought to the case. They had over 20 attorneys sitting in the courtroom, with plenty of them doing nothing but running up the bill. Their goal was to bankrupt the city of Hazleton.”

I go further than that. I accuse the ACLU of trying to destroy the United States, piece by piece, and jurisdiction by jurisdiction. And, I accuse the federal judge in this case, James M. Munley, of being equally un-American in his ruling in the case. I will, however, give the judge credit for being stupid, rather than malicious. Having made such charges, I’m obliged to back them up.

After stating our God-given rights, the Declaration of Independence recites our basic political rights, stating that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed. – That when any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it....”

The ordinances of Hazleton were passed for the health and safety of town residents. They applied only within the town. In attacking those ordinances, the ACLU also attacked both parts of that statement from the Declaration. No surprise. But here, a federal judge joined in the attack.

He is not elected. And yet, he substituted his political views for those of the people, who had just reelected their mayor by causing him to win both primaries, Republican and Democrat. There was no doubt whatsoever where the “consent of the governed” lies. On the other point, the judge assumed that he had somehow obtained the power to overrule the people.

More than a few Supreme Court Justices have claimed and used the power to amend the Constitution, stealing that right from the American people. But what does the Constitution say about that?

The only power that a District Court has over a case like this is what Congress has granted to it. See Article I, Section 1, and Section 2, clause 2. Congress has not given federal courts the power to destroy local governments. If there is any doubt about that, Congress should strip courts of any pretense of such power.

See also Article V, the amendment provisions. Power to change the Constitution is reserved to the people, through two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, plus three-fourths of the state legislatures. Not a unanimous Supreme Court, much less a contentious one-vote majority of that Court, may legitimately change the Constitution.

Article VI, Section 4, contains a guarantee that most people skip right over, yet it’s clearly violated here. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government....” What did “Republican” mean, more than a century before it became the name of a political party? It meant a government in which people elected their representatives who act for them in writing laws. If the people disagreed with those laws, they could defeat those representatives and elect others in their stead.

Today, when people use the word “democracy,” they mean “republican form of government.” Remember that some parts of our governments aren’t “democratic.” Bureaucrats generally aren’t elected. Neither are courts.

That brings us to Judge Munley. He was not elected. He cannot be defeated if he writes bad laws. That is precisely why federal judges should not be in the business of writing laws at all. Their job, under the Constitution, is to obey and enforce the laws of their jurisdiction. In this decision, an unelected judge made political decisions, which will cause harm and perhaps death to citizens who sought the protection of the law. His is an un-American decision.

This case has already been appealed, as has a similar case from Farmers Branch, Texas. Regardless of the outcomes of both cases in the Courts of Appeal, they will reach the US Supreme Court, probably consolidated for decision.

If there are at least five Justices of the Court who believe the Constitution should be obeyed, not toyed with, this decision will be reversed. Self-government will be restored to Hazleton and all towns and states like it. Lastly, a fat award of fees and costs, say $20 million or so, should be assessed against the ACLU for violating the constitutional rights of the people of Hazleton, and by extension, of all Americans. - 30 -

About the Author: John Armor practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu He lives in the 11th District of North Carolina.

- 30 -

8/31/2007 10:02:00 PM  
Blogger Charles said...

Court: Mexican trucks program to proceed (9th Circus says 'Let 'em roll!')
AP on Yahoo ^ | 8/31/07 | Jordan Robertson - ap

Posted on 08/31/2007 6:32:37 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

SAN FRANCISCO - The Bush administration can go ahead with a pilot program to allow as many as 100 Mexican trucking companies to freely haul their cargo anywhere within the U.S. for the next year, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request made by the Teamsters union, the Sierra Club and the nonprofit Public Citizen to halt the program.

The appeals court ruled the groups have not satisfied the legal requirements to immediately stop what the government is calling a "demonstration project," but can continue to argue their case.

The trucking program is scheduled to begin Thursday.

In court papers filed earlier this week, the Teamsters and Sierra Club argued there won't be enough oversight of the drivers coming into the U.S. from Mexico.

They also argued that public safety would be endangered in a hasty attempt by the government to comply with parts of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The trade agreement requires that all roads in the United States, Mexico and Canada to be opened to carriers from all three countries.

Canadian trucking companies have full access to U.S. roads, but Mexican trucks can only travel about 20 miles inside the country at certain border crossings such as ones in San Diego and El Paso, Texas.

8/31/2007 10:16:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

I think people are creeping out of cover now. Ditching the ghillie suit. The time for camo is ended. The usefulness of protective coloration is over. Everything that is crawling out of the woodwork is standing up and firing from the hip. The discussion on both sides of the culture wars is getting openly hostile.

What risks getting shredded is civil society. The carefully crafted ground rules under which things have prospered for so long. How will it end? Damned if I know.

8/31/2007 10:21:00 PM  
Blogger whiskey_199 said...

Wretchard --

Good points but the whole point of the Culture War was destruction of the other side. Because there could be no peaceful co-existence.

The Left really DOES want to destroy the culture that gave the US success because the destruction creates winners and losers. And on balance the Left believes (rightly) it will win more than it loses.

Why get into bed with Hsu? A guy from China with money that comes from ... where?

The answer is that the Left WANTS to ally itself with enemies of America to create a new society. One where say, polygamy is legal. Where ordinary men and women are restricted in their lives. Where the American Dream is destroyed, so that elites need no longer fear a competitor.

8/31/2007 11:00:00 PM  
Blogger dchamil said...

Life ain't easy for a boy named Hsu!

9/01/2007 06:23:00 AM  
Blogger TmjUtah said...

So.

Is Hsu a spook?

I've seen multiple "addresses and businesses provided on FEC documents turned out to be false" references across the media spectrum. Where's our dedicated MSM?

The Clintons' gave the Chinese our sonar technology and a couple decades worth of military aerospace/comm/encryption, all the while shielding the PRC's intelligence efforts from Federal scrutiny. Even after leaving office, Sandy Berger was willing to destroy archived documents to protect the franchise.

What's left for the Clintons of 2008 and beyond to offer? Besides day - to - day access, I mean?

9/01/2007 08:03:00 AM  
Blogger F said...

TMJUtah asks if Hsu is a spook. Do roses grow in Camelot?

Here's a guy who channels large sums of money to a high government official so he can have access to that official, and (perhaps more importantly) is able to bundle even larger sums of money from very anonymous donors who can show neither political interest (no voting or donation record prior to this incident) nor a source of income that covers that money.

The ONLY reason we don't accept the fact that Hsu is a spook is we can't/don't want to believe our highest official was recruited by a foreign power. Remember a comment from a previous political scandal: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. This guy walks and quacks like a duck, no question. He recruited Bill and now he's recruiting Hillary.

The more pressing question is this: are Hsu and the PRC getting their money's worth? Bill was not able to deliver the USG in a neat package, although some of the satellite technology was extremely valuable and America's trade reliance on China is worth even more to the PRC. But did we change policy toward Taiwan because of Hsu, or tone down our rhetoric in the UN? Probably not. My concern, though, is that these subtle overtures (what's subtle about $200,000?) chip away at our caution. Hillary might not be elected, and even if she is there's a chance she won't deliver Taiwan all gift-wrapped. But the next candidate will find it easier to accept foreign donations, and the candidate after that will discover that foreign campaign contributions are easier to amass than domestic ones, especially those pesky ones that come in small increments. We're being bought, folks, bought most obviously by the PRC, but also by Saudi Arabia, Israel, and who knows who else? This is a long-term effort, but one that is probably more dangerous than Pakistani or NorKor nukes. Not a good situation. . . F

9/01/2007 09:19:00 AM  
Blogger Kinuachdrach said...

Not a good situation. . . F

Have to agree. But remember the old wisdom that the darkest hour is just before dawn.

What has clearly gone off track in democracy is the rise of the Career Politician. But we the people can get rid of Career Politicians whenever we choose. We can change the rules if we wish to prevent Career Politicians from ever showing up again -- why not make service in Congress something like jury duty? It would be better to see decisions made by 450 randomly selected typical Americans than by a very unrepresentative group of Career Politicians.

The solutions are there. But we the people will not act on those solutions until the situation has become even worse. Bring it on!

9/01/2007 11:14:00 AM  
Blogger RWE said...

The thing that really gets me is that when we catch these guys red-handed nothing ever seems to happen to either them or the people they bribed - and that is in contrast to certain other people.

Where is an insanely self- promoting Nifong or Fitzgerald style prosecutor when you need one?

They should have arranged for Hsu to get caught reaching for the toilet paper in a public bathroom.

9/01/2007 01:18:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

"We're being bought, folks" ...

This is the nub of the problem. Washington has become the capital of the world, and all the world's bagmen are converging in it. Men long practiced in corruption and subversion; masters of unctuous flattery, indirect approaches to family and, when need be, of blackmail and the direct threat.

One European blogger, I forget which, argued that European politicians use immigrant voters as "shock troops" to dominate their own electorate. By artfully splitting up their voting blocks they can checkmate those to whom they would otherwise have been responsible. However that may be the question becomes: how can accountability be restored?

Part of the answer, I think, is in breaking down the protective cloak of the media. That which allows the escaping squid to black out the water; that which changes the subject or just changes the "facts". Notice that Hsu's essential entourage consisted of a lawyer and a publicist. Hsu knows which levers to pull.

People will always try to buy politicians. And the more powerful the politico, the harder they will try. And the only countermeasure anyone has come up with so far is vigilance. That and the ambition of their rivals who are willing to bring down their corrupt foe. This clears the decks for a while, before the creepers extend their suffocating embrace again. It's like taking out the trash. And endless task but not a useless one.

9/01/2007 02:23:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

Gateway Pundit goes over the old Clinton-China connections. One of the points he makes is that Norman Hsu has history going back to investigations into the Chinese spy ring allegations against Clinton. But if you follow the link, it's peripheral. The ping off Hsu is a transitory image of something just on the edge of the sensors, a link to Sioeng San Wong who was more in the focus. The question of just who Norman Hsu is, or represents, is still undefined.

But Doug Ross makes the more telling point that the spin is already starting. "The Politico's Ben Smith has transformed himself into a world-class dissembler with his latest defense of the Clintons". Ben Smith says the spinmasters are "attempting to revive the — never proven — allegations of a Chinese 'spy ring' buying its way into the 1996 Clinton campaign."

And that's exactly where the Norman Hsu affair will end up unless real investigative resources are thrown at it. Another one of those "unproven allegations" that China -- or someone -- was trying to influence the US Presidential campaign. Sometimes I think Hsu's incredible $2 million bailbond sends the signal that "here be dragons". Get mixed up in this and you will meet the big boys. Are you ready for that? A lot of people may see that signal and decide that they aren't ready to get into that world.

9/01/2007 03:21:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

Sweetness and Light has an extensive quote from the Wall Street Journal's attempt to discover just who Hsu is. Yesterday, an NYT story said its reporters failed to find any concrete evidence of his garment businessness at their address. People vaguely remember seeing Hsu, but no one quite knows what he does. Even in the Wall Street Journal piece, Hsu comes across as a man smiling at the limit of a cocktail party circle.

“He was involved in the fashion business,” said Bob Kerrey, a former Nebraska senator who is president of the New School in Manhattan, where Mr. Hsu resigned as a trustee yesterday. “I know that he designs and sells clothing.” ...

In 1990, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a group of Chinatown gang leaders had been arrested for kidnapping Mr. Hsu. The article said the alleged kidnappers were stopped after speeding through a red light, and Mr. Hsu took the opportunity to tell police he was being kidnapped. The article said he owned a restaurant and clothing businesses throughout the San Francisco Bay Area.

Mr. Hsu’s reputation in New York was far different from the one he left behind in California. In 2004, he began circulating among Democratic donors at fundraisers, and became a huge “bundler” — somebody who collects myriad checks from networks of friends, family and business acquaintances for political campaigns.

“I like him a lot,” Mr. Kerrey said. “He’s one of these guys in politics who gives and doesn’t ask for anything.” …


No. That's not Hsu's function. Asking for something is somebody else's job.

9/01/2007 03:27:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Powered by Blogger