 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 3:13 pm Post subject: Call your Congressman-Bill to keep taxpayer funds from ACLU |
 |
|
| Quote: | Ex-ACLU attorney: Group 'terrorizing' U.S.
Activist praises bill that would keep taxpayer funds from organization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 28, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Ron Strom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney who once worked for the American Civil Liberties Union has slammed the organization for "perverting" federal law by successfully threatening government officials into getting rid of public expressions of religion.
Rees Lloyd made the comments in an online podcast hosted by Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., in which the two discuss the congressman's legislation, the Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA (H.R.2679). The bill would prohibit judges in civil suits involving the First Amendment's Establishment Clause from awarding attorney's fees to those offended by religious symbols or actions in the public square such as a Ten Commandments display in a courthouse or a cross on a county seal.
Lloyd, a California civil-rights attorney, is an officer with the American Legion who wrote a resolution passed by the national organization supporting Hostettler's bill.
As WorldNetDaily reported, Hostettler's proposal would amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorney's fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. This would prevent local governments from having to use taxpayer funds to pay the ACLU or similar organization when a case is lost, and also would protect elected officials from having to pay fees from their own pockets.
In the podcast, Hostettler explains that the 1976 statute was meant to help "the little guy" who is going up against a governmental entity so he won't be impoverished when working to guarantee the liberty to express or practice his faith. But, says the lawmaker, the ACLU has used the law to enrich itself at the expense of taxpayers and as a means to silence public officials who don't want to be sued personally.
Hostettler says some organizations have created a new civil liberty a right to be protected "from religion, which is found nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in the Bill of Rights." The Indiana congressman blames "a very select group" for "perverting" the original statute, including the ACLU, People for the American Way and Americans United for the Separate of Church and State.
"They use this statute to extort behavior out of individuals," the congressman said, citing the Indiana Civil Liberties Union threatening local educators. The group sent a letter to officials saying they would be sued and be forced to pay attorney's fees should any graduation prayers be offered at commencement ceremonies. The threat sent the message, Hostettler said, that individuals tied to school districts could be impoverished personally.
Said the lawmaker: "When officials see the potential threat of a lawsuit, they stop allowing children to write papers for English class when they're asked to write about the most important person in their life and they decide to write about Jesus Christ."
Hostettler's bill would allow cases to move through the courts without public officials worrying about being held personally liable for thousands in attorneys fees.
"Let's let these cases go forward; let's let the courts decide what's constitutional and what's not, and let's not leave it up to the ACLU," he said.
Hostettler explained that while government entities can pay attorney's fees charged to individual elected officials, they don't legally have to, which puts the politicians on the hook.
Saying most taxpayers are in favor of allowing public religious expression, the congressman noted the irony of those same taxpayers being forced to pay the ACLU to sue their local governments.
"The current threat to public officials is very real; it's ongoing," Hostettler stated. "It's been the case for several years that public officials are scared to death to suggest any type of public recognition of our Christian roots. It's a problem that needs to be addressed in Washington, D.C."
PERA would prohibit damages, court fees and attorney's fees from going to plaintiffs in establishment-clause suits while keeping the original purpose of the civil-rights law, Hstettler says, to provide a means for those whose religious liberties have been blocked to find justice.
The congressman wonders why the ACLU would oppose his legislation since it still provides for "injunctive relief" e.g., a court can rule in the ACLU's favor and force the removal of a Ten Commandments display but takes out the monetary incentive for lawsuits.
"If they're not out for the money but are really out to preserve our civil liberties
then the ACLU should not be opposing my bill," Hostettler commented.
Hostettler mentioned the case of Judge Roy Moore in Alabama, whose colleagues on the state Supreme Court ordered the removal of a Ten Commandments display because, the congressman says, they didn't want the state's taxpayers to have to pay anymore than they did $500,000 to the ACLU as a result of the case.
In the podcast, Lloyd decried the "terrorizing litigation tactics of the ACLU."
Said Lloyd: "Not only can the ACLU brings these suits and compel taxpayers to pay them to destroy the public display of our American history and heritage, but so can Islamist terrorists or Islamist sympathizers in our midst.
"All they have to do is walk into court, make their claim that they're offended by the sight of a cross or other religious symbol, and they're going to win the case because judges follow one another under stare decisis," or deference to precedent.
The judges would then order that fees be paid to the Islamists, Lloyd contends.
Lloyd said this issue came into focus for him when he witnessed the fight in San Diego, Calif., over a cross on a veterans' memorial on public land in the Mohave Desert.
"For me, that was the one step taken too far," Lloyd said. "Now, for the first time, the ACLU was attacking the very veterans who secured their freedom."
A civil-rights activist since the '60s, Lloyd worked with the ACLU in the '70s and was "very supportive" of the 1976 Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act because it was a "noble attempt to assure that people who had legitimate civil-rights violations and injuries could secure legal representation."
Stated Lloyd: "The ACLU has perverted, distorted and exploited the Civil Rights Act
to turn it into a lawyer-enrichment act."
Lloyd says the American people are "oblivious" to how many millions of dollars in taxpayer funds are going to the ACLU each year.
The attorney pointed out many attorneys in cases brought by the ACLU are volunteers, so the fees the group is awarded normally do not go to reimburse an attorney but rather directly into the organization's coffers.
Lloyd also mentioned the case in Los Angeles County, where threat of litigation caused the Board of Supervisors to have the county's seal redesigned to eliminate a tiny cross.
"They would have fought the ACLU but for one reason: the threat of attorney's fees," Lloyd said.
As WorldNetDaily reported, in October the Center for Reclaiming America announced it had 100,000 signatures on a petition in support of PERA. Since then, another 60,000 have been collected.
Hostettler's bill, which was introduced first in 2003 without success, currently has 35 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives and sits in the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Stated Hostettler: "If we're successful in Washington, D.C., it will be because the American people have had enough.
This is a war worth fighting."
|
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Legal fees hearing is set in cross case
Nearly $340,000 sought from city
By Matthew T. Hall
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
December 28, 2005
The lawyer pushing to move the Mount Soledad cross off city land in La Jolla wants nearly $340,000 from San Diego's coffers for his legal fees and costs.
Lawyer James McElroy, whose client Philip Paulson has challenged the location of the cross since 1989, asked a San Diego Superior Court judge two weeks ago to order the city to pay his legal fees for a victory two months ago.
A hearing on the request is set for Jan. 13 before Judge Patricia Yim Cowett. In October, Cowett ruled in McElroy's favor that a voter-approved plan to transfer the towering cross and the land around it to the federal government was unconstitutional.
The group behind a successful petition drive to place the measure on the July 26 ballot has appealed Cowett's ruling to the state 4th District Court of Appeal.
Mayor Jerry Sanders and City Attorney Michael Aguirre have said the city also will appeal the October ruling.
The city has until Friday to respond to McElroy's request for legal fees. Deputy City Attorney David Karlin said yesterday he is researching ways to oppose the request as well as the formula McElroy used to set his sum.
In his legal filing, McElroy argues that he should be awarded legal fees at a rate 2½ times what he and an assistant are billing. He said granting the increase is "required to render this case even remotely attractive to competent counsel" and is allowed under state law.
He said the multiplier is necessary because of "the unpopularity of the cause, the contingency of any fee recovery, and the exceptional complexity and duration of the enforcement proceedings." He said he has received death threats over the case.
McElroy's request includes about 280 hours of his own work at $375 an hour and about 120 hours of work by assistant Shannon Nugent at $250 an hour.
In an Oct. 28 letter to the city, McElroy asked the city for $225,000 to settle his claims for legal fees related to the Superior Court case.
Yesterday, he explained his request for an enhanced rate.
"If ever there were the case for enhancement, this was it," he said. "In a sense, I'm protecting the constitutional rights of all the citizens of California."
He said he expected the judge to grant his request.
"There's no reason for her not to give me every penny," he said.
So far, the city has paid $233,000 in legal costs to McElroy for his past success in the cross case. The city has also spent about $35,000 in legal research and copying costs and about $200,000 in election expenses on three failed efforts to preserve the cross, including the July ballot measure.
Three out of four voters endorsed the plan to transfer the cross and surrounding land to the federal government as a park, but Cowett's ruling said the transfer would be as unconstitutional as keeping the cross on city property. |
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | An attorney who once worked for the American Civil Liberties Union has slammed the organization for "perverting" federal law by successfully threatening government officials into getting rid of public expressions of religion.
Rees Lloyd made the comments in an online podcast hosted by Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., in which the two discuss the congressman's legislation, the Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA (H.R.2679). The bill would prohibit judges in civil suits involving the First Amendment's Establishment Clause from awarding attorney's fees to those offended by religious symbols or actions in the public square |
I saw Mr Lloyd today, on I think it was Fox. Glad to see someone bumping this in the news
Thanks for posting this SBD
I had posted these links on another thread, worth repeating, IMO. Simplifies the issue
The law that ACLU collects fees under
Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Awards Act
| Quote: | the court,
in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer's jurisdiction. |
Hostettlers bill HR2679
| Quote: | SUMMARY:
Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 - Amends the Revised Statutes of the United States to limit the remedy to injunctive relief and deny attorneys' fees in a civil action against a state or local official for deprivation of rights where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion.
5/26/2005:
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. |
Send your your congresscritter a note ,and ask them to support HR 2679, ( 2005 version of the bill) get it out of committee, put a stop to ACLU getting our tax dollars for some of these cases. At the link you can see which congresscritters are already on-board ( as co-sponsers) click Bill Summary & Status at the link
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
