Lawyers Want Hazelton To Pay

This little town in Pennsylvania has become the lightning rod for many of the ills infecting America. An unlikely hero in this legal battle, Mayor Lou Barletta, grandson of an Italian immigrant himself, has never faltered in standing up for what is good and fair for the citizens of Hazelton, Pa.

The forces of evil, in a crass disregard for our Constitutional laws, are focusing on Mayor Barletta's stand for what is good in America, because if he ultimately wins this legal battle of illegal immigration, it will set the stage for a nation-wide rejection of this government-sanctioned flood of illegal immigrants. And the ACLU knows it.


Barletta will continue to fight the take-over of his town, and this case will eventually be fought on the grand stage of the US Supreme court. The outcome is uncertain, but could prove to be a landmark case of state vs federal jurisdiction.

Mayor Barletta says:

“When you have violent crimes committed, it takes away and chews at our quality of life. I don’t need numbers. These people,” he said, motioning to the opposing attorney, who have criticized his lack of statistics, “need numbers. The people in my city don’t need numbers.”

Meanwhile, the ACLU and other assorted shameless lawyers and riff-raff organizations want the citizens of Hazelton to foot the bill for all legal expenses incurred in this war against illegal immigration.

Standard Speaker
They want Hazletonians to pay

Thursday, 06 September 2007

When a group of lawyers filed a petition last week to recover the legal costs fighting Hazleton’s illegal immigration law, they may have stripped their work of any nobility it might have once had.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund and other organizations that successfully fought the Hazleton’s ordinance want a federal judge to force the city to pay their legal fees and costs.

The tab is $2.4 million. A total of 37 lawyers and paralegals from seven different law firms and organizations submitted bills showing 5,409 hours of work. If you divide the amount sought by the number of hours, you get an average fee of $444 per hour. That’s a heavy price from folks who tried to portray themselves as Good Samaritans rushing to the defense of immigrants victimized by a ruthless mayor’s witch hunt.

The biggest bill — $1,067,931 for services by 22 lawyers — comes from Cozen O’Connor, a Philadelphia firm that touts its commitment to free services for the needy. Cozen O’Connor points out on its Web site that “in 2005, the firm ranked 28 out of 200 law firms nationally and first in Philadelphia for pro bono service logging almost 20,000 pro bono hours.”

Those who fought the city may have viewed their cause as humanitarian, but their effort to recover the legal costs at the expense of Hazleton taxpayers is anything but.

The challenge smacks of vindictiveness. Some of groups’ spokespeople have made it clear they don’t like Barletta and now they see a chance to make him pay. The trouble is, if they succeed, it will be regular Hazletonians who will pay.

“Barletta is playing games with taxpayer money,” the ACLU’s Witold Walczak said last week. “Somebody needs to ask the question if Barletta is promoting his political ambitions on the backs of taxpayers.”

Has Barletta benefited politically from the publicity generated by his anti-immigration campaign? Of course. Republican Party strategists have mentioned him repeatedly as a strong candidate to unseat Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski.

And, the mayor has taken steps to expand his visibility outside the 11th Congressional District. In addition to making numerous appearances on national news programs for more than a year, he’s been traveling throughout Pennsylvania in recent weeks. He has made appearances as far away as Lancaster, Gettysburg and Westmoreland County.

However, whatever political benefits the mayor receives from the hoopla is entirely beside the point to this central question: Is it fair to make city taxpayers pay for what is essentially a political battle between two extremes in the immigration debate?

The answer is no. It would be nice if those seeking retribution showed as much concern for Hazleton’s taxpayers as they did for the anonymous plaintiffs in the federal court case.

Lou Barleta will stand up for what is right, and against what is wrong in America. If the courts shoot him down, as they are likely to do, what does that say about justice in America?

trackbacked: Freedom Folks, DeMediacratic Nation

Seaside principal: no public apology

Seaside principal: no public apology

By The Californian.com

A Monterey school principal today cited employee rights as the reason why a public apology would not follow a lunchroom incident Tuesday when a supervisor demanded that a Muslim student remove her Islamic head scarf.

Seaside High School Principal Sydney Renwick agreed to a face-to-face apology for the 13-year-old student who said she was humiliated when a lunchroom supervisor demanded she remove her hijab in front of more than 100 students.

But Renwick said a request by the Bay Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations to have the lunchroom supervisor publicly apologize would be a violation of the employee's rights.

He cited the creation of a hostile work environment as one of those violations.

"The school understands that this is an emotional issue and that religious practice is central to this community's beliefs and value system," Renwick said. "But on the same token, we cannot violate this person's rights while we attempt to rectify the situation."

CAIR is requesting a public apology because the student was humiliated in public, according to CAIR spokeswoman Abiya Ahmed.

"A public apology is important not just for this girl, it would offer closure to the family," Ahmed said.

She said her group has offered to provide diversity training at the school to prevent what she called "ignorance" and "misunderstanding" within the community.

But Seaside already has a comprehensive diversity training program set in place, Renwick said. In recognition of the community's diverse population, the training was implemented before the school year, he said.

Renwick called Tuesday's event an isolated incident and said that it was not the intent of the employee to single out one person because of her faith.

The employee was enforcing school rules that prohibit headwear indoors, according to Renwick. The rule exists for student safety and mostly applies to inappropriate clothing such as gang-related attire.

"This was in no way an attempt to harm a student," Renwick said. "This was an extremely isolated incident. There's a zero tolerance policy (against prejudice and discrimination) at this school. Zero tolerance is understood, accepted and reinforced. When incidences do occur, they are investigated thoroughly."

Renwick said the investigation into Tuesday's incident has been completed and that he is in the process of determining disciplinary action.

COMMENTS:

Comments by: mira	Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:16 pm
puh hu, stop crying. This is the United States of America. American Women don't wear this stuff. You either become an American and live like an American or - GO HOME. That's it. No apology. Get over it.
Comments by: kwitchyerbelliakin	Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:35 pm
oops did I say "Shalom" Aleichem? Oh and if you like Salaam Aleichem! Yeah Baby! Just a thought, are you allowed to sit next to a boy? Why not?
Comments by: kwitchyerbelliakin	Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:32 pm
I think I shall start wearing my Yarmulke, with a nice big Star of David on it. I'll sit next to her and see how "diverse" she really is! Come on fellow Jews or anyone who wants to know about our traditions, lets wear our skullcaps with pride. I have extras for anyone who wants to wear one. And I'll wear a nice shirt with a large BLUE Star of David on it and smile at her and to CAIR! . Any devout Christians want to wear your Crosses/Crucifixes? YES! I support you as well. We need some "diversity" that shows our religious roots. Shalom Aleichem !
Comments by: anhe64	Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:40 pm
The teacher is doing exactly what he/she should have been doing. Kudos to him/her. Those jihabs are intimidating and a reminder of dark ages where women where oppressed and dark ages that Muslim fanatics try to impose on us. That jihab is nothing more than show of force just like the gang type clothing that is banned. Next thing they are going to wear that bedspread Halloween costume with only 2 holes for your eyes that reminds me of scary ghost or grim reaper with the sickle (huh, coincidence with those suicide bombers wearing that garb as well?) CAIR should be ashamed of them trying to intimidate the population and "re-education" techniques. And are our public schools not supposed to be religion free? May be the girl should live for a while in Iran and ask her fellow school mates there how great life is over there. And by the way, when are we finally allowed to wear a cross in any of those Islamic countries? Churches are forbidden in Saudi Arabia. May be we should forbid Mosques financed by Saudi Arabia until we are allowed to build something over there...

CAIR, the ACLU, and Friends of the Down-trodden Oppressed Muslims, were seen mounting their white steeds, armed with high colonic preparations for Seaside High School Principal Sydney Renwick.

Advice to Mr. Renwick: Tell CAIR and the ACLU to piss off, if he wants to maintain any dignity at all, 'cause the school lawyers will be seen crawfishin' all over the conference room, where they will undoubtedly offer up their own bums for a good reaming as well.

When are our schools ever going to learn you must stand up to these bullies?

h/t Michael Savage

Trackposted to Dr Sanity,Diary of the Mad Pigeon, 123beta, Right Truth, Maggie's Notebook, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Webloggin, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Right Voices, and CatSynth.com, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Hazelton's Lou Barletta Dukes It Out With ACLU

Facing a busload of Leftist immigration apologist lawyers, Mayor Lou Barletta only has to continue to bring them to face the truth: the proclamation the town passed is a matter of law, not feelings, not discrimination.



He's a stand-up guy. If his town's protection under the law is, in fact NOT upheld, it will be because of the largest major obstacle in the fight for local justice:
Federal activist judges.

Protecting the Republic from Federal Judges

June 8, 2006
By Tom DeWeese
hat tip/American Policy Center

In California, a majority of voters supported a ballot measure to stop illegal aliens from receiving tax-funded services such as schools, hospital care and social services. A federal judge declared the measure null and void and forced policy over the legal wishes of the electorate.

In Oregon, a majority of voters supported a ballot measure to require the government to compensate landowners when property was taken through environmental regulations. A federal judge declared the measure null and void and forced policy over the legal wishes of the electorate.

In Alabama, Judge Roy Moore was forced to remove the Ten Commandments from the State Supreme Court grounds. A federal judge declared the monument unconstitutional, ignored the 10 Amendment and forced his will over the legal wishes of the electorate.

The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, forcibly overturned the abortion laws of all 50 states though its Roe V Wade decision. The Supreme Court ignored the 10th Amendment and forced its will over the legal wishes of the electorate.

Unclear environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are being interpreted by federal judges (who are working hand in hand with non-governmental organizations and private foundations) to implement radical policy, resulting in the taking of private property in every state.

The common term today is "activist judges." So great is their power that school boards are literally banning everything from school prayer to wearing a tee shirt with a Christian message, for fear federal courts will take action against school officials. Now, even state and local courts are making identical rulings from fear of being overturned by a higher federal court.

Activist federal judges have declared themselves the power over state legislatures, school boards, and city councils. Prayer in public places, personal privacy and now marriage laws are under siege from federal courts. The courts, in turn, are responding to a battery of lawsuits filed by such predatory activist groups as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) - making the ACLU more powerful than locally-elected officials.

As a result, the federal government grows ever more invasive, as the states become ever more subservient. The Republic for which we stand is quickly disappearing. Obviously, that's not what our Founding Fathers had in mind.

To the rescue is Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) as he introduces a new bill called the "We the People Act." As Rep. Paul explained upon the bill's introduction, "Federal judges are undermining republican government by imposing their preferred policies on states and local governments, instead of respecting the policies adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people."

(read the rest)