JONATHAN TURLEY
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, University of Chicago, and other schools.
After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients. He is also one of the few attorneys to successfully challenge both a federal and a state law — leading to courts striking down the federal Elizabeth Morgan law as well as the state criminalization of cohabitation.
In 2010, Professor Turley represented Judge G. Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial. After a trial before the Senate, Professor Turley (on December 7, 2010) argued both the motions and gave the final argument to all 100 U.S. Senators from the well of the Senate floor — only the 14th time in history of the country that such a trial of a judge has reached the Senate floor. Judge Porteous was convicted of four articles of impeachments, including the acceptance of $2000 from an attorney and using a false name on a bankruptcy filing.
In 2011, Professor Turley filed a challenge to the Libyan War on behalf of ten members of Congress, including Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx). The lawsuit was before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
In November 2014, Turley agreed to serve as lead counsel to the United States House of Representatives in its constitutional challenge to changes ordered by President Obama to the Affordable Care Act. The litigation was approved by the House of Representatives to seek judicial review of the claims under the separation of powers. On May 12, 2016, the federal court handed down a historic victory for the House and ruled that the Obama Administration violated the separation of powers in ordering billions to be paid to insurance companies without an appropriation of Congress.
Other cases include his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former United States Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation. In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge. Professor Turley has also served as counsel in a variety of national security cases, including espionage cases like that of Jim Nicholson, the highest ranking CIA officer ever accused of espionage. Turley also served as lead defense counsel in the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is faced criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas. He also served as counsel to Larry Hanauer, the House Intelligence Committee staffer accused of leaking a classified Presidential National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times. (Hanauer was cleared of all allegations).
Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States. In 2020, the federal court found that there merit in the challenges raised by Professor Turley and his co-counsel Tom Huff. Accordingly, the judge ordered his release to protect him from Covit-19 while the Court prepared a decision on the challenges. Pursuant to a court order, Dr. Al-Timimi was released from the Supermax in Colorado and the two drove across the country so that he could be placed into home confinement. He also represented Dr. Sami Al-Arian, who was accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization while he was a university professor in Florida. Turley represented Dr. Al-Arian for eight years, much of which was in a determined defense against an indictment for criminal contempt. The case centered on the alleged violation of a plea bargain by the Justice Department after Dr. Al-Arian was largely exonerated of terrorism charges in Tampa, Florida. On June 27, 2014, all charges were dropped against Dr. Al-Arian. He also represented pilots approaching or over the age of 60 in their challenge to the mandatory retirement age of the FAA. He also represented David Murphee Faulk, the whistleblower who disclosed abuses in the surveillance operations at NSA’s Fort Gordon facility in Georgia.
Professor Turley also agreed to serve as lead counsel representing the Brown family from the TLC “Sister Wives, a reality show on plural marriage or polygamy. On December 13, 2013, the federal court in Utah struck down the criminalization of polygamy — the first such decision in history — on free exercise and due process grounds. On September 26, 2014, the court also ruled in favor of the Browns under Section 1983 — giving them a clean sweep on all of the statutory and constitutional claims. In April 2015, a panel reversed the decision on standing grounds and that decision is now on appeal.
Professor Turley was also lead counsel in the World Bank protest case stemming from the mass arrest of people in 2002 by the federal and district governments during demonstrations of the IMF and World Bank. Turley and his co-lead counsel Dan Schwartz (and the law firm of Bryan Cave) were the first to file and represented student journalists arrested without probable cause. In April 2015, after 13 years of intense litigation, the case was settled for $2.8 million, including $115,000 for each arrestee — a record damage award in a case of this kind and over twice the amount of prior damages for individual protesters. The case also exposed government destruction and withholding of evidence as well as the admitted mass arrest of hundreds of people without probable cause.
Professor Turley also served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British of Columbia (Canada) Supreme Court. In the latter case, he argued for the decriminalization of plural union and conjugal unions. In 2012, Turley also represented the makers of “Five Wives Vodka” (Ogden’s Own Distillery) in challenging an effective ban on the product in Idaho after officials declared the product to be offensive to Mormons. After opposing to the ban on free speech and other grounds, the state of Idaho issued a letter apologizing for public statements made by officials and lifting the ban on sale for “Five Wives Vodka.”
Turley has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, including the Florida House of Representatives. He also served as the consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives on the impeachment of Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá.
Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. That testimony includes the confirmation hearings of Attorney General nominees Loretta Lynch and William Barr as well as Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Professor Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was also found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He has been repeatedly ranked in the nation’s top 500 lawyers in annual surveys (including in the latest rankings by LawDragon) – one of only a handful of academics. In prior years, he was ranked as one of the nation’s top ten lawyers in military law cases as well as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40. He was also selected in the last five years as one of the 100 top Irish lawyers in the world. In 2016, he was ranked as one of the 100 most famous (past and present) law professors.
Professor Turley is one of only two academics to testify at both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings. In December 2019, Professor Turley was called as the one Republican witness in the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings. He appeared with three Democratic witnesses. Professor Turley disagreed with this fellow witnesses in opposing the proposed articles of impeachments on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations or obstruction of justice. He argued that these alleged impeachable acts were at odds with controlling definitions of those crimes and that Congress has historically looked to the criminal code and cases for guidance on such allegations. The committee ultimately rejected those articles and adopted the only two articles that Professor Turley said could be legitimately advanced: abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. Chairman Jerrold Nadler even ended the hearing by quoting his position on abuse of power. However, Turley opposed impeachment on this record as incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate. He argued for the House to wait and complete the record by seeking to compel key witnesses like former National Security Adviser John Bolton. His testimony was later relied upon in the impeachment floor debate by various House members and he was cited by both the White House and House managers in their arguments before the United States Senate in the Trump impeachment trial, including videotaped remarks played at the trial.
Professor Turley’s articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with hundreds of articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is a columnist for USA Today and writes regularly for the Washington Post. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News, CBS News, BBC and Fox News. Professor Turley has been a repeated guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday. Professor Turley has taught courses on constitutional law, constitutional criminal law, environmental law, litigation, and torts. He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS). His work with older prisoners has been honored in various states, including his selection as the 2011 recipient of the Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta Elder Justice Award at Fordham University.
His award-winning blog is routinely ranked as one of the most popular legal blogs by AVVO. His blog was selected as the top News/Analysis site in 2013, the top Legal Opinion Blog in 2011 as well as prior selections as the top Law Professor Blog and Legal Theory Blog. It was also ranked in the top 20 constitutional law blog in 2018. It has been regularly ranked by the ABA Journal in the top 100 blogs in the world. In 2012, Turley has selected as one of the top 20 legal experts on Twitter by Business Insider. In 2013, the ABA Journal inducted the Turley Blog into its Hall of Fame.
Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest.
For further information: Mr. Seth Tate – 202-994-0537
Icon made by DinosoftLabs from Flaticon
Mornegleide:
Yes, the US Constitution is idiot proof from our liberals. They can’t touch it. Liberals in America are the most intolerent group of people you will ever find when it comes to politics. They will shout you down, ruin speeches by screaming epithets, march in the streets intimidating those they disagree with by getting in their face, mock as neanderthals those they differ with.
But we are safe in our US Constitution. It calls for free speech and the liberals are not able to take that away no matter how much they scream, rant, swear at others, or push them around.
Hi! Just have to say I’m a fan of the U.S. Constitution and like what you say about it being “idiot-proof”. Gives a person hope to hear that….
I’ve been reading some of your stuff, today, and I’m wondering…. what person from history (i.e. founder, lawyer, scholar, philosopher ) would YOU most love to be able keep as a conversation buddy….?
Highly curious….Thanks!
MornenGleide
Iraqi, U.S. Forces Take Over Al-Mahdi Stronghold Without Firing a Shot
Thursday , June 19, 2008
They came at dawn, thousands of Iraqi troops and U.S. special forces on a mission to reclaim a lawless city from the militias who ran it.
By the end of the day, al-Amarah was under Iraqi government control — without a shot being fired amid cheering Iraqi troops.
The city had been taken over by Muqtada al-Sadr’s al-Mahdi Army two years ago after British troops handed it to an ill-prepared Iraqi Army. On Thursday, the city’s streets were crawling with smiling yet forceful Iraqi security forces. Soldiers searched houses as police manned checkpoints and Soviet-era tanks guarded bridges over the Tigris River. Jubilant residents were seen motioning to Iraqi soldiers to search their homes as if saying “I am with you, I am Iraqi, come see.”
The flood of troops, who had moved into position outside the city a week ago, had encountered no resistance as they moved in. The leaders of the Shia militias that once ruled as crime bosses and warlords were either gone or in hiding. Even the police chief fled a week ago, fearing arrest for his affiliation to the al-Mahdi Army, while the mayor, a member of the Sadrist movement, was arrested.
Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia prime minister, has insisted that his large-scale operations in the south are not targeting the Sadrist movement, which has been increasingly weakened by internal divisions, its brutal reputation for murder and extortion and a hugely more confident Iraqi military.
Al-Sadr, the fundamentalist Shia cleric who heads the al-Mahdi Army and the Sadrist political movement, claimed he had ordered his men not to resist the government forces, and a senior member of his parliamentary block expressed grudging support for the Iraqi troops.
Locals said that militiamen had been spotted throwing their weapons into the Tigris or trying to hide them along the lush river banks. One man said that he saw women digging up stashes hidden by fighters and taking them into a weapons collection point manned by Iraqi soldiers to get them out of the hands of the fighters.
russ:
Unlike you, I did read much of the Report. Here are the verbatim conclusions of the Committee detailing the false, misleading, incompetent, and ill intentioned deeds of this Administration and the President, Vice-president and Secretary of Defense in particular:
“Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.”
If you would like the actual false statements, they are likewise stated in the Report. A fair minded person must conclude that our Government either was totally incompetent,or “lied us” into a needless war. Neither choice is very appealing, and given this Administration’s record of not leveling with the American public, I would have to say the chances are that we have been deceived.
Liberal TNR Editor:
Bush Never Lied to Us About Iraq
By Warner Todd Huston | June 16, 2008 – 13:39 ET
In an editorial in the L.A. Times on the 16th, Kirchick said that “Bush never lied to us about Iraq” and then went on to substantiate his claim in a style that runs contrary to the Media and nutroots meme that “Bush lied and people died.”
The left narrative, one the media is happy to parrot, has been that Bush lied us into war. Kirchick points out that “the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.”
But Kirchick then steps out into some of the most intellectually honest analysis I’ve seen from the left since before the 2000 election when BDS first began to infect the media.
Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House “manipulation” –that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction –administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.
Kirchick goes on to chronicle some of the agencies and investigative bodies that have found absolutely no evidence that the Bush Administration manipulated Congress as it made the case for the war.
Kirchick also comes as close to calling John D. Rockefeller (D, W. Va.) a liar as you can without using those specific words when he notes that Rockefeller’s “highly partisan” Senate Intelligence Committee report does not support the wild eyed claims made in its summation.
Yet Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.
Kirchick also trenchantly notes that the latest partisan attack that is being presented as a “report” conveniently forgets to mention the words of the many dozens of highly placed Democrats who’s words were nearly identical to Bush’s in the run up to war.
In 2003, top Senate Democrats — not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others — sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month’s report, titled “Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information,” includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees — who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors — many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.
In the end, Kirchick finds no shred of proof that Bush “lied” about anything. In fact, he scolds every Democrat and partisan leftist for saying that he did and that the claim that Bush lied us into war is an “unsubstantiated allegation” that is “cowardly and dishonest.”
So, kudos to James Kirchick for an honest look at the record. Certainly we can agree to disagree right now, at this point, if the war was a good idea or not. But, it is beyond question that there were no lies disseminated by the Bush Administration and neither did the president “manipulate” any evidence to “mislead” the nation into war.
Go read Kirchick’s piece and marvel that it came from a lefty. He really nailed it. “Bush never lied to us about Iraq” is worth your time.
mespo: the only way you can agree that the recent Senate Intelligence Report says what you says it says is to be wililng to take the word of, lets say, someone as “distinguished a liar as Michael Moore…….
If you read the report you would see it doesn’t say anything anywhere near what you have been told it says.
russ:
Seems you disagree with the recent Senate Intelligence Committee Report that says we were “lied” into a war by Bush & Company. We’ll just ignore Richard Clark too. But hey I’ll take your word for it since you have mastered the fine art of cut and paste putting the same comment in two threads. Seem my reply elsewhere to this foolishness. By the way, on your second comment, I wouldn’t give up my day job. Being a swami doesn’t suit you. I can think of other acts in the circus that might though.
The really SAD fact is if America had been attacked again after 9/11; the same childish lunatics here would be screaming for impeaching him for NOT protecting us.
mespo:
Nobody died in a war whose facts were not fairly presented to us; the world saw the danger Saddam was and our President acted. Now you choose to complain.
The OATH President Bush took is very clear and looked at from Bush’s viewpoint, he was doing only what his oath of office required. Of all the responsibilities imposed on a president, none exceeds the obligation to protect the American people. Indeed, any president found to have neglected or shortchanged that obligation would expose himself to impeachment — by popular demand. Bush did what he thought he had to do.
So please, you, Cindy, and the rest of the looney left, lay off my SON’S COMMANDER IN CHIEF! Your incessant whining is getting sickening.
russ:
Like so many one dimensional thinkers, you missed the point. Her son did more than volunteer, he died fighting in a war we would have never fought if the facts were fairly presented to us. Forgive me for feeling bamboozled, but if I were fraudulently sold a lemon car, I would resent making the payments. You should know that your sons’ service is honored by everyone, it’s the cowboy yahoos we elected who deserve the scorn. I wonder what your sons would say to your trashing of a gold star mom? Why don’t you ask them or, for a better perspective, ask their mother?
mespo727272:
Cindy’s son volunteered as have two of my sons and millions of other’s sons & daughters.
In my opinion, it is wrong for her to be politicizing his sacrifice in an attempt to cause this country to lose a war that almost everybody that thinks agrees must be won while we only differ on the cost to the world of leaving the battlefield.
bindo:
She tried but she had family problems. Maybe someone read you something about it –using flash cards I suspect. Only a cad would insult a mother who lost a son in a needless war. That family’s honor is intact, yours is shattered, if it ever existed.
Cindy, go get a job.
Dear Jonathan,
I have been uplifted by your quest to show that the Democrats, especially my Congressional opponent, Pelosi, are now (or have been) collaborators with BushCo in their crimes.
As you may, or may not know, I have been an avid and outspoken advocate for impeachment for years now and I appreciate the renewed interest in the concept of impeaching GWB and DC.
I think it would be timely if you could come to San Franciso and speak on a panel with me and do some actions aimed at the Speaker.
Of course, Cindy for Congress would pay your travel and lodging expenses.
I don’t know if you read these responses…
Respectfully,
Cindy Sheehan
Dear Prof. Turley,
My name is Alan Jasie and I am the Program Producer for News Talk Online at Paltalk.com. I would like to invite you on to our show to talk about what the next president should look for in selecting the next Supreme Court justices. We would also like to discuss the decision reached by the Supreme Court re Habeas Corpus and the prisoners at Guantanemo Bay.
News Talk Online is broadcast live Monday – Friday at 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM EST. We use a web cast audio/video format and our audience can ask questions to our guest and host via voice chat or text (our host would read the text questions). We are located in New York City but we can do the interview over the phone.
News Talk Online at Paltalk.com is hosted by Gary Baumgarten (former CNN Radio NY Bureau chief). Paltalk has over 4 million users. Our show is also broadcast over the CRN Radio network into 12 million households.
We have the following dates open: Friday June 20th and Monday June 23rd –Tuesday June 24th
Some of our recent guests:
News and Politics – Ed Koch, Gary Hart, Ollie North, Dr. Frank Newport (Gallup), Jon Soltz (VoteVets.org) and Bob Barr(Today)
Authors – Gregg Mitchell (So Wrong For So Long), Jonathan Cohn (Sick), Cliff Schecter (The Real McCain), Robert McElvaine (Grand Theft Jesus)
Entertainment – Gary David Goldberg (Sit Ubu Sit), Janine Turner
I look forward to hearing from you.
Thanks and Best regards,
Alan Jasie
News Talk Online
Program Producer
212 564 9997 ext 242 (T)
646 236 1517 (C)
Paltalk “Communication Beyond Words”
Mr. Turley,
Heard you on Rhandi Rhodes program today. Keep up the good work.
Currently I am battling an overzealous and moronic code department at the City of Fort Lauderdale. I have already attended the hearing they set up with the special magistrate that is on their payroll. No jury trial. He did not hear a thing I said. Literally. (my microphone was cutting in and out)
I have been pondering going to battle (appeal / sue) over the following legal questions:
Whether quasi-judicial code hearings conducted in front of a special magistrate – whose salary ( $350 per hearing ) paid by the moving party ( the City) – is a conflict of interest. (Obviously if he ruled against the City very often they would not bring him back for any hearings)
Whether quasi-judicial hearings conducted in front of a special magistrate – instead of a jury trial – violates a resident’s right to a jury trial per Article 1, Section 22 of the Constitution of the State of Florida and Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution of the State of Florida, and Amendment VII U.S. Constitution. ($150 / day fine being threatened)
SECTION 22. Trial by jury.–The right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate. The qualifications and the number of jurors, not fewer than six, shall be fixed by law.
Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
Whether an action by the City to take a resident’s property because he is fixing his car on his own property … violates Article 1, Section Two of the Florida Constitution, also see Amendment XIV, U.S. Constitution.
SECTION 2. Basic rights.–All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; … No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.
Whether an action by the City to take resident’s property simply because he stores a few items in his fenced in back yard … violates Amendment XIV, U.S. Constitution. The City’s own code – section 47 – clearly gives Fort Lauderdale residents the right to store items in their back yard. (City’s response ? “section applies to commercial property”. Then why is the word residential used 12 times in this section of the code ?)
Whether FLL Code section 47-19.1.M – which states “ No private garage will be allowed in residential districts in which is conducted any business” – is overbroad and vague, and therefore unconstitutional.
Whether the City is negligent for failing to provide the accused resident with a proper working microphone at the special magistrate hearing.
Whether the City is negligent for conducting said hearing in front of a special magistrate who admitted he is hard of hearing.
Whether Judge Hull – by ordering the resident to allow the Code officer into the resident’s fenced back yard – is violating the resident’s fundamental right to privacy.
SECTION 23. Right of privacy.–Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public’s right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.
SECTION 12. Searches and seizures.–The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution
Whether the City is guilty of selective enforcement when it ignores blatant code violations by one resident and over-pursues violations by another resident.
Whether the City’s overzealous prosecutions – advanced solely to fund their coffers – violates
Article 1, Section 17 of the Florida Constitution:
SECTION 17. Excessive punishments.–Excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishment, attainder, forfeiture of estate, indefinite imprisonment, and unreasonable detention of witnesses are forbidden
I think I have a fair chance if I can ever get these issues in front of a jury trial in the County Court system.
I spent almost 110 years in the Federal Justice (sic) system trying to obtain justtice against Eastern Air Lines for labor violations. All I got from that was BOHICA (bend over here it comes again) I will never waste my time in the Federdal system again ( I hope ).
What do you think my chances are ?
I have not had a chance to do any deep legal research on these matters yet. Been too busy trying to do everything that the code department expects me to do.
Thanks in advance,
Bruce Toski
Fort Lauderdale, FL
954 583-4191
Dear Professor:
You seem to key in a lot on injustice in Denver, ranging from its hooker trsfficking federal judge( Bush appointee, to its pesky grsnd juries , and leaks in criminal matters, but your silence is utterly deafing in the Stone civil csse.
Mr Jim Stone wss tehe civil plsintiff in the reputed big qui tsm worker csse.
Strangely, he did not testify in 1999 at the trial.
He wss hurt on all of that, even though he went to the FBI
The FBI guy did not testify in the civil csse sgainst against Rockwell, either.
You are strangely silent on the above.
Mitchell
Re: “Criminalization of America” related topics
Professor, I just wanted to thank you for continuing to “shine the searchlight,” for lack of a better expression, on the serious problem of lawmakers who make up ridiculous and abusive “crime” statutes, and the law enforcement officials who enforce them.
I post at another justice discussion forum, where concerned citizens who are very worried about these types of abuses by law enforcement can meet to share and exchange ideas for possible improvement. I know you are very busy with your own blog, and this is strictly an invitation only, but if you’re interested in receiving a link to this Justice System Discussion forum just to check it out, feel free to send me an email at: JUSTICE1st@aol.com. I don’t want to post the link to the forum on the blog, because that will attract the destructive flamers.
Again, my sincerest thanks.
Susan