Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

February 04, 2005

Update on the Philly 5

The Christians arrested in Philadelphia for the crime of quoting scripture have been denied their request for relief by Clinton nominated Judge Petrese B. Tucker. Their request was based on the obvious bias of the prosecutors, which Judge Tucker apparently couldn't see, even though assistant district attorney Charles Ehrlich proclaimed the scripture the defendants were quoting was “hateful, disgusting, despicable words,” and “fighting words.”

AFA Center for Law and Policy (“CLP”) senior trial attorney, Brian Fahling, who is representing the Christians in federal court, strongly disagreed with Tucker’s ruling, saying “the law requires us to show bad faith or retaliation by the D.A.’s office; we established that beyond argument with a videotape of the entire incident that shows our clients peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights, then being arrested and charged with crimes that carry a potential for forty seven years imprisonment, and a District Attorney’s office that retaliated against them because it hates their speech.” Fahling continued, “It is difficult to conceive of more compelling evidence of bad faith and retaliation than what we have presented to the court in this case.”

Sometimes it's hard to believe this is still America.

Posted by Jack Lewis at February 4, 2005 09:34 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/140

Comments

Manufacturing a weak integrity argument to justify free speech violations...

It started in a federal Court in Pittsburgh and has moved quickly to Colorado Universtity and Iraq. It's a stretch, but political hacks have besieged first amendment free speech protections.

They attempt to combine a provacative essay comparing victims of 911 with Nazi criminals and an emotionally charged General's comments on war, questioning whether such is permissible when the comments may cause damaged to an institution's integrity.

Why?

Because in a Pittsburgh federal court a well connected corporate crony has suggested the novice argument, and the legal question is waddling without any legal precedent in need of an activist court.

Thus the current unexplained campaign against “free speech” appears to be little more than a Madison Avenue scheme to control any discussion of the President’s desire to privatize higher education.

That is, a number of for-profit colleges have faced inquiries, lawsuits and other actions calling into question the way they inflate enrollment to mislead/increase the value of their parent company’s stock.

In the last year, the Career Education Corporation of Hoffman Estates, Ill., has faced lawsuits, from shareholders and students, contending that, among other things, its colleges have inflated enrollment numbers. In addition, F.B.I. agents raided 10 campuses run by ITT Educational Services of Carmel, Ind., looking for similar problems.

But in a Pittsburgh federal court there is a bigger can of worms.

Kaplan, Inc., is wholly own by the Washington Post Company. For-profit postsecondary education has turned the company around and individuals far more powerful than Martha Steward have made millions. However, there is a nominal “Watergate” styled federal court proceeding (scandal) involving campus “free speech,” that could expose the administration’s violation of public trust

In short, I provided the S.E.C., Department of Education, and federal courts information that appears to prove Kaplan inflated the Concord School of Law enrollment, telling investors that the “flagship” of its higher education division has as many as 600 to 1000 or more students.

I also provided evidence to prove apparent violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

However, in an attempt to protect important icons of the Washington and New York financial/political circle, hacks have been hired to stir a free speech controversy.

But even Stan Chess (En Passant http://lawtv.typepad.com/en_passant/2004/a_question_of_l.html) innocently questioned the obvious - a clear violation of the federal securities laws.

“Kaplan’s Concord School of Law says it’s one of the largest law schools in the country, yet for each administration only about 25 of its graduates sit for the bar exam. What happens to the hundreds of other students in each class?”

What are you willing to do?

Posted by: kstreetfriend at February 5, 2005 12:16 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.