24thState

UMSL Students Bear False Witness To Protect Violent Commie Professor

Left wing blogger Adam Shriver is trying to spin another story without having all the facts.  On Sunday, he interviewed two "students" from UMSL who were in class when their professor assaulted Adam Sharp.

Up first was an anonymous woman who used charged language to assert that Sharp tried to violently enter the classroom, but was held back by Giljum, who was trying to protect his students.  She referenced Virginia Tech, and stated Sharp was a crazy man who screamed outside the classroom. 

A great story, except it was completely made up and is contradicted by the video evidence.  Shortly after Giljum broke Sharp's camera and took a swing at him, Sharp started filming with his backup camera. The 25 seconds of video below show Giljum returning to the classroom, yelling "Get Out," then slamming the door. 

In the video, Adam Sharp doesn't say a word.  He merely holds up the camera to get video of Giljum, who has just attacked him.  There was no screaming (from Sharp), no attempt to get into the classroom, and in fact, nothing but recording Giljum's eratic behavior.

 

A second guest on the radio show claims he heard a noise outside, but doesn't mention any kind of violent struggle at the door of the classroom.  That's because it didn't happen.  

Both students omit important facts. Giljum took a swing at Sharp. He entered the classroom and announced to the students that he had done so, and that class was dismissed.

Back to the interviews.  It's strange that two students would omit the fact that Giljum admitted to the assault, but would play up a false violent confrontation to protect Giljum. It's also strange that they don't discuss Giljum being handcuffed and taken to the police station. It's not strange at all that Shriver would try to distort a story, and that the story would be picked up by FiredUpMissouri and Media Matters. Is Shriver being funded to by one of those organizations specifically to manufacture these falsehoods?

The point of Shriver's story was to put the blame on Sharp. Shriver's tweets and posts all talk about breaking the law (the law of Trespassing).  He fails to note that Giljum was placed in handcuffs for assault.  What do you expect from someone like Shriver?  He hates Sharp, and probably still giggles about his friends buying a domain name that points to NAMBLA (yes, progressives bought a domain name for a local tea party site and pointed it to a criminal man-boy love site).  With today's release of video from Judy Ancel discussing how to drive non-union competitors out of business, the veil has been pulled back on the Gramscian damage at UMSL and UMKC.

And no amount of lies from the Left will save them now.

Related articles

• UMSL Lecturer Don Giljum Assaults Citizen Journalists. Police Confiscate Video. (sharpelbowsstl.blogspot.com)
• Labor Notes: Union Official, College Lecturer Don Giljum Resigns After AFL-CIO Pressure, UM-KC Won't Rehire Next Semester (biggovernment.com)
• Turning 'Non-Violence' Into 'Violence': The Quote That Wasn't (biggovernment.com)
• Ameren Responds To Don Giljum's 'Sabotage' Tactics (biggovernment.com)
• Radicals Resign Because They Were First Tolerated (24thstate.com)
• Taking Bets On Whether the Media Will Cover Marxist Union Instruction (bigjournalism.com)

Third Court Date Set for Elston McCowan

I just received word that Kenneth Gladney's alleged assailant, Elston McCowan, has a trial date of July 11th, 2011. McCowan's first court date last March was postponed to last October. The October date was also postponed. Gladney was allegedly attacked by McCowan after a Russ Carnahan townhall on August 6th, 2009.

AG Chris Koster Achieves an #EpicFail on Challenging Obamacare

Missouri progressives are in a tizzy over Koster's amicus brief challenging Obamacare, going so far as to call him a DINO (don't they realize that socialists are democrats in name only?)  Well, apparently they read the amicus brief as closely as Congress read the Obamacare bill; that is, not at all.

Tucked away in the middle of the brief, Koster lays out arguments the government could try to use to achieve constitutionality of the presently unconstitutional Obamacare:

Third, and despite undermining the historical continuity of Commerce Clause precedent, a bright-line exception could be constructed to aggressively limit this Court’s decision solely to the healthcare arena. Such an exception might include the following limiting considerations: (a) the congressional regulation is in the area of healthcare in which nearly all individuals are certain to enter interstate commerce because of the need for medical treatment at some point in their life; (b) the regulation of healthcare is necessary because individuals are highly likely to “cost-shift,” where the uninsured impose on others the burden of paying for their choices; and (c) the economic impact of the regulated choices affect a significant portion of the national gross domestic product and are beyond dispute.

Did you get that?  We can just carve out an exception to constitutionality under commerce clause jurisprudence for health care.  Great idea!  Let us set a precedent for the courts to read in unconstitutional powers to the Constitution.  Shoot, we might as well end this farce of constitutional governance altogether!

Koster also states that Prop C comes into direct conflict with Obamacare under the Supremacy Clause (presumably, the basis of his brief).  We addressed this many months ago, but judging from Koster's constitutional knowledge under the above quoted paragraph, I am not surprised he doesn't get it.  In fact, I would venture a guess that he barely understands the legal reasoning within his brief, and that he had little role in drafting it other than instructing the draftees to make sure they included arguments in support of Obamacare.

Koster furthers this joke by suggesting the lack of a severability clause should not preclude the courts from deeming the individual mandate severable, should it be found unconstitutional.  The argument goes that when Congress is silent on an issue the courts should not determine Congress had intent one way or the other.  The problem with that reasoning is that Congress has deemed it necessary to include severability clauses before.  Congress should not get a presumption of severability because they forgot to include the provision.

Bottom line, this is nothing more than a political publicity stunt.  If Koster was serious, he would file a case in Missouri, which would eventually go up to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.  This is Koster trying to win some conservative votes for his reelection.  He deserves no praise for this amicus brief, and everyone ought to think twice about any "conservative" praising Koster's actions.

Missouri needs a lawsuit filed in opposition to Obamacare; not a crass political stunt from a party switching political hack.

AG Chris Koster joins Florida v US Department of Health and Human Services

Attorney General Chris Koster (D-MO) has finally recognized the will of the people of the Show Me State and filed an amicus brief on the side of Florida in that state's case against Obamacare. The brief as well as the cover letter Koster sent to Missouri Senate President Pro Tem Robert Mayer (R-MO) and Speaker of the House Steve Tilley (R-MO) is below.

Amicus Brief - Federal Health Care - from Mo. Atty. Gen. Chris Koster

Kinder's Obamacare Gambit for the Governorship

Image by mstabbycat via Flickr

Missouri's Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder (R-MO) expects the US Supreme Court will settle his health care legal challenge:

Kinder, who spoke at a Monday meeting of the Rotary Club of Cape Girardeau, said a judge gave the U.S. government until Jan. 18 to respond to his lawsuit, which was filed in July at the Rush H. Limbaugh Sr. U.S. Courthouse. But he thinks whatever happens at the trial level, the case will make its way past the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and on to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"They're going to ultimately decide the constitutionality of the law," said Kinder, a Republican. "It's a classic case where the Supreme Court says 'We're going to resolve the difference.' Hopefully, we'll be knocking on the door of the Supreme Court by 2012."

And Kinder will be knocking on the door of the Missouri governor's mansion in his bid to oust Democrat Jay Nixon. Kinder's fight against the Federal take over of health care will help him in that race.

An Answer To The Supremacy Clause On Prop C

Josie Wales over at Big Government destroys the "supremacy clause" argument that has been tossed around to defang Prop C.

States have powers, and while those powers diminish in the face of the progressive-statist attack upon our Constitution, powers run contrary to individual rights.  So let me break it down:

1) Prop C places a duty on the state of Missouri to defend its citizens from the IRS enforced individual mandate.

2) Prop C denies the federal government state resources to enforce the individual mandate.

Anyone with an ounce of constitutional knowledge knows that neither of those aspects of Prop C conflict directly with the Supremacy Clause.

Josie writes that Prop C does not invalidate Obamacare, but instead puts a duty on the state of Missouri not to use state resources to implement it, and to defend Missouri citizens who choose to opt out.

Many non-experts have argued that the individual mandate “trumps” Prop C’s rejection.  First of all, the Supremacy Clause only applies to laws passed in pursuance to the Constitution, and as many in Congress have made clear, constitutional powers played no role in the drafting of Obamacare.  Second, as stated above, Missouri has no obligation to enforce the individual mandate.  I dare the Administration to file another unpopular lawsuit against a state operating within the confines of the Constitution.  And please do it before the November midterms.

The national government possibly has recourse through the withholding of federal funds, but with so many states challenging the individual mandate, I cannot imagine the national government withholding funds from a majority of the states.  At any rate, Prop C did not advance the powers of the state of Missouri, it simply put the state on the side of individuals in the conflict over Obamacare.

This has several impacts.  First, if the 30 some-odd lawsuits targeting Obamacare, including Peter Kinder's can show that Obamacare is not constitutional, the state of Missouri has both the authorization and the duty to prevent its implementation in the state.  This is closer than you think, as the Obama DOJ is arguing that the individual mandate has constitutional authority because it is a tax, something they denied while pushing the bill.  In other words, there is no mandate.  In the eyes of Obama admnistration lawyers, there is simply a new $2.5 trillion tax on all Americans that is designed to pay for healthcare.  There is no interstate commerce or General Welfare or Good and Plenty clause.  It's a tax, and has to be defended as a tax.

Second, there is the question of enforcement.  The Federal government cuts Medicare and increases Medicaid responsibilities for the states with this bill.  As a condition of receiving some state subsidies, you're forced into boosting your Medicaid eligibility as well as those in the state exchanges.  Like the unemployment benefit that offer support now for increased economic pain in a few years, the unfunded mandates of Obamacare destroy state budgets. 

With Prop C hanging out there, the federal government is forced to sue another state for how they spend their resources.  It's the ultimate federal catch-22.  Why have states if they can't decide to spend their own money? And if you can force a state to spend its money on your mandates, what can't you force a state to do.

Prop C, in the words of Patrick Tuohey, is the conventional explosive that sets off the atomic one.  The federal government cannot simply sue to strike down the law without invalidating the federal-state relationship.  Can it happen?  Are there judges who will rule the supremacy clause is as Pete Stark says, a license for the federal government to do anything it wants?  Sure.  And I'm sure there are plans to bring such a suit in front of such a judge.

But there are consequences to such actions.  As seen by the DOJ, who invalidated the political argument by claiming the individual mandate is a tax, a lawsuit against Prop C could force Obamacare supporters and congressional backers into unwinnable campaigns. If they choose to ignore the will of the people and disregard the law in the pursuit of power, we will simply elect new people who sweep the law away in its entirety

So by all means lawyer up. Tell another state and another state's citizens that their views and their votes don't matter.  I double dog dare you.

 

Analysis: Prop C Legal Challenge

I had an opportunity to examine the complaint issued by attorney Chip Gentry and the decision rendered by Judge Paul Wilson.  Both have some interesting implications regarding the opponents of health care freedom in Missouri: they are fairly misinformed.

First we should take a look at the attorney representing opponents of Prop C, or rather proponents of health care tyranny.  Mr. Gentry appears to have no background in Missouri constitutional issues or laws regarding legislative issues.  His level of competency was quite apparent in both his arguments and the judge's decision, which makes me wonder why an experienced attorney did not take the case.  Did those attorneys look at the case and decide it was a losing argument?  At the very least, Mr. Gentry understands the hopelessness of an appeal.  He announced on Monday that he would not seek an appeal due to the lack of any remedy.  If he had just recognized that an adequate remedy did not exist to begin with, both the plaintiffs and the Missouri state officials named as defendants (and presumably defended with taxpayer dollars) would not have wasted any time or money.

The lack of an adequate remedy had much to do with Judge Wilson's dismissal with prejudice.  Part of the problem was Mr. Gentry's failure to bring the case at the appropriate time.  The case was filed on June 17.  The Missouri State Legislature passed the referendum on May 11, Secretary of State Carnahan communicated with local election authorities (LEA's) by May 21, the referendum was certified on May 25 (the statutory deadline for the August 3 vote), and ballots were printed up by June 7.  As Judge Wlson points out, the constitutional claims made by Mr. Gentry were as ripe on May 11 as they were on June 17.  This means, for some reason, Mr. Gentry delayed the constitutional attack on the referendum, in order to make two statutory attacks.  For those that do not understand legalese, constitutional issues trump statutory issues, and in this case, should have been argued immediately if there was any merit to the claims.

The remedy Mr. Gentry sought in his complaint was to either change the ballot language or to remove Prop C from the ballot.  The problem was that the ballots had already been printed by the time the case was argued.  What Mr. Gentry was seeking would come at great expense to Missouri taxpayers.  Yet he asked for a different remedy at trial.  Presumably, he realized the futility of what he sought, so he asked the court to either not count the votes for Prop C or to count but not report the votes for Prop C.  This was a rather unprecedented remedy to the perceived wrongs, and as an attorney, I would be hesitant to ask for such an audacious remedy as to allow the public to vote on an issue only to ignore that vote.  Thankfully, Judge Wilson recognized that this remedy would far exceed any authority of the court.

Let me repeat that and make it easier for other blogs to quote.

Chip Gentry told a judge that Missourians should spend time and money debating Prop C, go to the polls to vote on it, but that the actual votes should never be counted, or if counted, hidden away never to see the light of day.  It is difficult to imagine any lawyer outside of the Obama DOJ making this argument, much less winning it.  And in oral arguments?  Hail Mary Full of Grace! 

At this point in the decision, Judge Wilson provided a civics lesson on referendums in Missouri.  Perhaps it was for the benefit of Mr. Gentry.  There are three types of referendums in Missouri.  The one at issue involves the legislature certifying a proposed law to the people.  In this situation, the governor is irrelevant.  If the public approves the law, it is the law.  As such, the question posed to Mr. Gentry was whether it would be appropriate to bring a lawsuit against a bill before the governor signed it.  The answer is no, and the parallel to Prop C would be the same.  The public has not approved Prop C (yet).  Furthermore, Prop C would not even really have an effect on Obamacare until the national government tried to enforce the individual mandate, in 2014.

I responded to the argument regarding the fiscal note in a previous posting, but it was dealt with in much the same way that I summed it up:

Brenner and Finch claim to have a personal stake in the litigation due to "likely increases" in their premiums and "significant health risks" resulting from MHCFA.  The amusing part about this speculation (aside from the fact that premiums are increasing under Obamacare) is the claim that the fiscal note accompanying the referendum was insufficient in not speculating on the hypothetical negative costs.  If that line of argument sounds convoluted, it is because it is convoluted.

The final two argument revolved around the constitutional issues.  My understanding was that the legislature made sure there were no issues with the "single-subject" or "original-purpose" rules, and Judge Wilson agreed after an examination of the legislative history.  The presumption in favor of constitutionality weighed heavily in Prop C's favor, as well.

So what can we conclude from all of this?  Mr. Gentry was probably not up to the task.  Either too many experienced attorneys turned down the case before June 17 or Mr. Gentry was not able to cobble together a coherent argument until that date.  Either way, the lawsuit was doomed from the start.  Now that the state legal challenges to Prop C have ended, we can expect another front in this battle to open up before the August 3 vote.  You can be sure that various astro-turf groups like MORE (Missouri's new version of ACORN) and Health Care for All will be active in the coming weeks.  Keep yourself informed by visiting the Missourians for Health Care Freedom, and volunteer your time to promote this important issue. 

And vote "Yes" on August 3.

D'Agrosa Plans To Go With Richard Gere Defense In Gladney Trial

The trial is set for October 26th.  I'll bet dollars to donuts it gets extended at least one more time, say to just after the elections.  We were right that charges would be held until the holidays - do we really think the trial will go live a week before voters head to the polls?

Regardless of the date - that's some bit Paul D'Agrosa had on KMOX this morning.  Referring to McCowan and Molens as gentlemen is going to be a stretch, no matter how they clean them up for court. 

D'Agrosa is an excellent attorney, but I think he may not have all the evidence in the case. Check out what he says.

“Those people, I say those people, collectively, but Mr. Gladney specifically,  got exactly what they wanted: attention to their cause” said D’Agrosa.

D’Agrosa says his clients have asked for a jury trial:  “I think a jury will sort out all the rhetoric and politics surrounding this case.”

The essential weak point in the theory put out by D'Agrosa is that Gladney had a cause other than putting food on the table.  If D'Agrosa believes that the entire mess was a political attack created by some Tea Party conspiracy, he's got to get better researchers than a graduate philosophy student aching for attention.

Let's crush this nonsense right here.

This is a picture of Kenneth Gladney in Arnold during the 100 days speech Obama gave months before the Carnahan Townhall.

Gladney is sitting down next to a young man named Orlando, another seller working with David Brown.  They were out selling pro-Obama merchandise.  Like the street vendors they were, they brought merchandise to the crowd they thought would sell. Based on the turnout of Tea Party events, Brown and the other merchandise sellers switched direction and purchased merchandise they thought Tea Party protesters would purchase.

The night of August 6th, Kenneth Gladney was not a conservative activist as reported by the Post Dispatch.  As we've told you over and over, he was a street vendor willing to sell any merchandise people would buy to help support his family while unemployed.

So is it possible that Gladney attacked McCowan out of nowhere as he went to his car, as McCowan first said?  No.  It's not possible, because Elston McCowan himself admits that he picked Kenneth Gladney out of the 1000+ people who were there and confronted him.   At his press conference, in his interview with Don Fitz, and on KMOX, McCowan states that he went up to Gladney after the townhall and confronted him about the buttons.  Here he is in his own words.

"But I was excited.  I saw the shiny little buttons over there, and I inquired what kind of Negro are you to sell buttons like that."

So explain this.  Kenneth Gladney is a vendor. He sells buttons of all political persuasions to whoever buys them.  He's standing outside the townhall August 6th, and McCowan chooses him out of the crowd.  If McCowan had kept walking - none of this would have happened.   McCowan was the instigator.

McCowan chose his victim. We don't know if it was preplanned to cause a scuffle, or if it was anger over the townhall, or if it was just an emotional reaction to seeing Kenneth sell a button with Obama on it.  What we do know is that McCowan chose his victim, based on his own testimony in multiple venues.

Now I'm no fancy defense lawyer, but perhaps someone could explain to me if D'Agrosa believes Kenneth Gladney was able to find three witnesses and a lawyer to lay in wait while he enticed McCowan to come up to him?  That's the story he's selling. He wants us to believe that three witnesses were able to concoct a story on the fly in the few moments after McCowan chose Gladney out of the crowd.  Was it all a set-up?  Did Gladney sell Obama merchandise in April to set up the story in a long and complicated plot to entrap McCowan?  Or could it be that once again McCowan and Molens are manufacturing a story based on the evidence they knew, not taking into account that other pictures and video existed?

Back to D'Agrosa's statement this morning.  How exactly did Kenneth get what he wanted?  Kenneth ended up with medical bills, had to move out of his home, and suffered through debilitating back pain as a result of the attack.  During the Obama fundraiser with McCaskill, I invited Kenneth to the event, and as people hugged him in sympathy, his wife had to stop us because we were causing Kenneth so much pain.

Is that what Kenneth wanted?  Physical pain months after the attack? A year lost of his life, the slander of his character, and branding by the NAACP as a race traitor because he let himself be photographed being kissed on the head by a "European?"  How the fuck did Kenneth get what he wanted, Mr. D'Agrosa?  You may be a defense attorney dedicated to giving your clients their full rights, but a little common decency should have held your tongue.  You never took a call from him at night when he broke down, fearful that the whole thing was a waste, and that he would never get any justice.  I took that call.  No matter what happens in the trial, Kenneth still loses.  He'll never get his reputation back after what the Left did to him. 

McCowan chose his victim.  McCowan. chose.  his. victim.  McCowan went up to Kenneth and asked him, apparently in a gentlemanly way, [What kind of (fill in your appropriate n-word here) are you to be selling buttons of our first black president?]  If McCowan had kept walking - if Gladney had left a little earlier, or if he had been just a little out of the sight of McCowan, this never would have happened.

Excuse me for the language - I'm no saint, but it's disgusting what they did to Kenneth.  And the  further idea that the St Louis Tea Party, who had no interaction with any of these people before the incident, and didn't even know their names until they appeared in the Post Dispatch, is just as ludicrous.  The reports of violence at our events hurt our numbers.  Our crowds prior August 6th included children and infants and little old ladies and pregnant women and business owners trying to speak out.  After the story broke, many of our people were afraid to come to events, afraid of appearing on television in what looked like a riot.  Afraid of being called a violent mob.  We were forced to organize security details and give out precise instructions on the times to arrive and leave.  The attack also brought up the nastiest elements on the left, who began their personal attacks on Tea Party organizers and their businesses.

Prior to August 6th - the movement was clean.  After August 6th, we had to prepare for the possibility that the Left was going to physically attack our weakest members.  How exactly did we get what we wanted?  The strategy of HCAN, SEIU, and OFA was to confront the Tea Partiers and frighten them with numbers.  It's in their strategy documents.  They brag about it in their training even today.  The only people who got what they wanted were the national healthcare supporters who decried the ratcheting up of tensions by angry conservative mobs.  How did that serve the cause of the Tea Party? 

D'Agrosa will never have to answer that.  He can throw out wild-eyed conspiracies of an all-powerful Tea Party that convinced an unemployed diabetic man to attack men twice his size.  That's his actual strategy.  D'Agrosa is going to clean up his clients, but there is just no way in court to hide the size differential between Gladney and Molens and McCowan.  How is he going to convince anyone in open court that Kenneth, just about the mildest mannered guy around, attacked a guy with 70 pounds and half a foot on him, and drove him to the ground 25 feet away?  Especially considering the prosecution has witnesses ready to testify that McCowan and Molens were doing the beating?   D'Agrosa will tell his story, but he can't bring any witnesses to counter those of the prosecution.  Any witness brought up by D'Agrosa is going to be compared to the second tape prior to the trial - the one where the police are speaking to witnesses at the scene.

D'Agrosa would never fake testimony - and with the second tape comparison, there can't be any  witnesses to back up McCowan's story that the police would listen to his side.  So the SEIU press strategy of watching the tape and concocting a story won't get a chance in the open courtroom. 

D'Agrosa's sole option is to dress McCowan and Molens nicely, focus on McCowan being a reverend and blind in one eye, and cast doubt on the prosecution's witnesses.  It all comes down to who is more convincing to the jury.  Can D'Agrosa sell that Elston McCowan walked up to Gladney in a gentlemanly way and called him a Negro (or the other n-word), while the hulking brute that is Perry Molens stood idly by and pleaded that we all get along?

We'll find out - but only after the election. 

My Red Light Camera Story

Commentary by Bob Boyer

I've been following the news reports regarding Sen. Jim Lembke's attempts to outlaw red light cameras in the State of Missouri as we know them.  He's gone farther with this cause this time around than ever before, by having his amendment to kill the cameras attached to the Senate Omnibus transportation bill.  He's even threatened the municipalities cash-cow enough that St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay and others took a trip to Jefferson City to lobby on behalf of these cameras - and the corporations behind them. 

Other than the great reporting by Jake Wagman at the Post-Dispatch, the liberal media in St. Louis has been a giant commercial for Slay and the others.  So I feel that now is the time to tell my personal red light camera story, and the events at Arnold's municipal court on April 12th, 2010.

I recieved a "Notice of Violation" from the Arnold Police Department in December, 2009 in the mail, informing me that my Chevy Trailblazer had ran a red light at the intersection of Hwy. 141 and Jeffco Blvd. on Wednesday, December 16th, 2009 at approximately 11:00 am.  I found it very odd that I was accused of running a red light at this time, because on that day at that time of the day I was at work, in Chesterfield, 30 miles away.  It was very clear to me that I could not have ran this red light and had been falsely accused.  So, I decided to excercise my rights and take this to court.  I went to court a month later and had this case moved to trial on April 12th, 2010.

I arrived at court at  6:30 pm that day.  There were a few others there that had red light camera violations as well.  The people gathered in the lobby, myself included, then entered the City Hall Chamber (where court is held) and sat down.   Then entered the Court Clerk, a few police officers, and prosecuting attorney Paul D'Argosa.  You may recall Mr. D'Argosa as the lawyer who defended the SEIU thugs who beat up Kenneth Gladney.

D'Argosa then asked for all red light camera offenders to come forward and sit at the first bench in front of his table.  I was 5th in line of 10 red light camera "offenders".  He then would hear the cases one-by-one at his table.  Suprisingly, all of the cases in front of me were dismissed.  Even the lady directly in front of me, who actually admitted to Mr. D'Argosa that it was her daughter who was driving the vehicle. 

Now it was my turn.  I had prepared my defense by obtaining a signed affidavit from my employer stating I was at work at the time I was accused of running the red light.  I also had a copy of the Missouri Constitution, the Revised Statutes of Missouri regarding traffic laws, and a copy of the Supreme Court opinion in the City of Springfield vs. Adolph Belt, Jr. case.  I would not have to use any of it.  Mr. D'Argosa asked me my name, and if I had seen a video of the violation.  I gave him my name and told him I did.  He then asked if I still felt I was innocent.  I said, "yes".  He then asked in a personal way, "what my story was".  I started by asking, "Is this a trial or an administrative hearing".  He replied, "It is a trial."  I then stated, "Well, seeing that this is a trial, I have all the rights of due pro---".  He immediately cut me off and stated, "Mr. Boyer, you're not going to try and dictate the law to me, are you?".  "You know these cases have been tried in Federal Court and the courts have held these cameras up every time".  I then stated, "Perhaps you should look at the Supreme Court decision in City of Springf--".  He then cut me off again and stated, "That case has nothing to do with Arnold.  It was about Springfield's administrative hearings".  Before I could continue, D'Argosa stated, "Mr. Boyer, do you really want a trial?".  I replied, "Well, yes, that is my right".  D'Argosa then told me to "sit over there" in the main part of the Council Chamber and await my trial.  All the other red light camera "offenders" tickets were dismissed.

I was put on the back of the docket that evening.  I sat through regular traffic ticket cases, domestic disputes, and a robbery case for over an hour until it was my time.  At that time, I was called before the judge by the prosecuting attorney.  It was only D'Argosa, the judge, two court clerks, and two unknown police officers present with me.  I was then approached by Mr. D'Argosa in a personal way and asked, aloud, "Hey, look, no matter what you say up here, we're just going to dismiss this anyway.  So do you really want to go through with this?".  Shocked, I replied, "You mean, no matter what I say, you are just going to let me go?".  He nodded yes.  Since there were no witnesses, and no matter what legal challenges I presented, they would just dismiss it, I agreed.  D'Argosa then said, "You're free to go."  I then asked him, "Do I need some sort of paperwork saying it's (the case) has been dropped?".  He replied, smiling, "Oh No, they can't do anything to you.  We couldn't arrest you if we wanted to because we can't put you in that vehicle".  I then left the courtroom, amazed...and frightened at the same time.

I have been hesitant to tell my story for a while now.  You see, I pride myself on being an honorable person.  I respect the laws of this land and understand why they are there. Unfortunately, while the majority of people are the same way, there are a few "bad apples" that do not care about safety of others, or following the law.  And I realize that if they read this story, and see that the City of Arnold collects money from the good people that pay them up front, and just dismisses the cases that would be difficult to prosecute, that the "bad apples" will run these red lights more knowing law enforcement doesn't have any true teeth to enforce those violations.

I also realize that by doing so, they create a dangerous, and potentially deadly, situation for the innocent driver on the other side of that intersection.

ATS is quick to bring Kathy Tremeear (the mother of a ten-year-old girl that was killed in Arnold by a red light runner in 2002) to every event, hearing, or press conference regarding these cameras.  I feel horrible for this woman because she usually ends up breaking down and crying when discussing her daughter.  She's being used by ATS and the political machine behind these cameras to elicit an emotional response with people.  They use the same tactic when showing school buses about to be hit at these intersections.

But when you take emotion out of play, and look at the reality of the situation, the fact that law enforcement cannot get these bad drivers off the road legally makes the situation MORE dangerous, not less.  ATS and various government officials are quick to point out a percentage of "the reduction of accidents" at these intersections. Yet, when you look at the total number of accidents, the numbers themselves are quite low.  For instance, the City of Arnold claims that the intersection of Hwy. 141 and Astra Way Drive saw a decrease of accidents of 50% from 2007 to 2008.  That's a great PR line, but the reality is that accidents went down from 6 to 3 that year.  Is it statistically significant to base your argument on that low of stats?  The figures they will not tell you about is the number of violations that have occured in 5 years at these intersections.

Over 19,000.

The number of violations are not going down.  People are not becoming "more aware".  And, without the ability to enforce these violations, dangerous drivers cannot be made to stay off the road.  This is a recipie for disaster.

You hear all kinds of rhetoric about "these cameras save lives".  Yet another glaring statistic they won't tell you is how many deaths have occured in Arnold due to red light runners.

1...in 2002.

So what are we really talking about here.  If it's that intersections in Arnold were deadly and these cameras were needed to "save lives", then we've shown that's not true.  If it is about the number of accidents, then we've shown that the total number was insignificant to begin with. If these cameras are about being aware, then we've shown that since violations aren't going down, people are not more aware.

So what is the real reason behind these cameras?  It's the money.

The City of St. Louis generates over $3 million in revenue annually from the 51 cameras in the City.  $3 million is enough to get the Mayor, Police Chief and any other person they could find down to Jefferson City to protect their income stream.  In the next few days, we will be showing where the money has come from and how Arnold was the gateway for ATS to make it's way into Missouri.  And what very powerful people benefit from them.

Please keep this in mind the next time somebody tells you, "They are doing this for safety".  Safety is very far down the list of priorities involving red light cameras.

Show Me Better Courts Delivers Petitions For Amendment

This is a little rambling - I'm writing while listening.

On a conference call listening to James Harris discuss the Show Me Better Courts Initiative.

This has been a real battle to get it through - if you remember, Robin Carnahan's Secretary of State office was caught by MOPNS and 24thstate leaking state documents to FiredUpMissouri to attack Show Me Better Courts. 

The petition gathering process was also contentious, with petition blockers physically threatening gatherers, throwing water on them (to ruin ballots), and in one case, trailing a petition gatherer for days and stealing thousands of ballots out of the back seat of his car.

Regardless of the tactics, over 250,000 petitions were delivered.  And if they pass muster, the amendment will be on the ballot to change the court plan.

This is the ballot language. Here is the argument James Harris wrote for the Missouri Record. The major plank I like is to essentially change the law from a cabal of lawyers hand-picking friendly judges to send to the governor for approval into something closer to the federal system, where the governor picks the judge with approval of the Senate.

Human Events wrote about the Missouri Plan in 2007:

The attention drawn by the court’s increasing activism has focused on the state’s judicial selection process. Unlike the federal model, where the President nominates the candidate of his choice, Missouri governors must appoint a judge chosen from a panel of three candidates submitted by the state’s Appellate Judicial Commission. When it was initiated in 1940, the "Missouri Plan" was seen as a way of keeping politics and special interests out of the judicial selection process and was copied by most of the other states.

Unfortunately, the Plan’s promise has not been fulfilled. Over the years, the Commission’s secretive selection process has become increasingly controlled by the Missouri Bar Association, an organization with close ties to liberal special interest groups. As a result, the three finalists chosen by the Commission to replace retiring Justice White have records or backgrounds that indicate they will do nothing to reign in the activist court.

Harris says they spent about $1.5 million on the campaign, but says they will be vastly outspent by the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys in the November campaign.  

One extra note came through - supporters of the Missouri Plan like to cite that 34 other states use the "non-partisan", or "merit" plan, but Harris points out only 5 or 6 states use the exact plan that is so heavily controlled by the Missouri Bar.  In Arizona, for example, regular citizens outnumber lawyers 2-1 on the commission.