Pa Man Seeks Slice Of Iranian Pie

John Revlas of Holland, Pa. is among those asking a Federal Court to expand the distribution of seized Iranian assets reports Naomi Seligman of Seligman Consulting. Pa Man Seeks Slice Of Iranian Pie

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 2008 granted summary judgment of $2.65 billion to the plaintiffs in Peterson, et al. vs. Islamic Republic of Iran to compensate for multiple acts of terror sponsored by the rogue nation.

The money is coming from assets held by Bank Markazi, which is the central bank of Iran, and Citibank.

The case was upheld last July by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Bank Markazi is appealing to the Supreme Court.

A separate action adding to the pot of money concerns  the ruling that the Pahlavi Foundation, which owned a skyscraper on Fifth Avenue,  was a front for the Iranian government. Again summary judgment was granted. Compensation from the sale of the building and other property is valued at over $1 billion. This is also slated to go to victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism.

Revlas, along with Mark Boyd and John Kees want those receiving this money go to victims of the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut Lebanon. The bombing killed 241 and injured many others.

Relvas’ brother Rui was among the dead, as was Kees’ father. Boyd was a Marine who survived the attack and has joined the suit on behalf of his friends.

The plaintiffs are represented by Karsman, McKenzie & Hart of Savannah, and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll which has offices in seven cities including Philadelphia.

While one may wonder what the cut of the law firms will be, we say the less money Iran has the less resources it has to kill those who want to be left alone including its own citizens.

 Pa Man Seeks Slice Of Iranian Pie

Corporate America Wants Gay Marriage

An amicus brief was filed March 5 by 379 corporations and business groups urging the U.S. Supreme Court to declare “marriage rights” for same sex marriage with regard to Obergefell v. Hodges. Corporate America Wants Gay Marriage

The list includes CBS and Philly’s own Comcast which owns NBC so expect the news you get about the matter to be what you expect.

It includes Goldman Sachs from whence, it seems, more often than not comes  our treasury secretaries. And of course it includes all the hip tech companies like Apple and Facebook and Google.

You get the suspicion that this is a done deal and no amount of reason or rationality can change things.

Still, we will try.

Sodomy is bad and society should not give an inkling of approval for it. It should be given the same status as chain smoking cigarettes or eating super-sized meals thrice a day.  It should be encouraged as much as sharing a needle in a crack house.  People who care about people don’t give license for these things.

The claim that people are born gay is problematic. Just ask a heterosexual male who has been pestered by a gay one. Obviously, recruitment occurs, and obviously choices are made. The claim that one is born in such a way that one can’t resist a sexual relationship with another male is the linchpin of the gay marriage movement. It makes about as much sense as saying a man can’t resist a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl or another man’s wife.

Civil marriage is not about personal fulfillment. The only reason for the state to be involved in the relationship between two people is because third parties might find themselves involuntarily involved. With a man and a women these third parties are called children. It is pointed out that marriages occur now between parties that cannot or do not intend to have children. These are marriages of convenience. They are not good things. They should, in fact, be discouraged. If gay marriage is declared a right, marriages of convenience will become the norm. Why shouldn’t two business partners get married to resolve tax issues? If gay marriage becomes a right, why not incest? The only reason for the institution is  “love” and “personal fulfillment” right? A father-son marriage would certainly be a way of beating the inheritance bite. Meanwhile, the moms and dads  who are actually working to create the future find the burden just gets a little harder for them.

Fathers are vital to child rearing, maybe even more so than mothers. While, we think you can make, unlike for men, some kind of a case for a marriage between  two women, choosing to raise a child without a father is epitome of irresponsibility and should be discouraged.

Ancient wisdom matters. The Bible is not ambiguous regarding homosexuality. It’s a bad thing according to Scripture. History backs this up. Societies where male homosexuality was commonplace — again putting paid the claim that one is always born gay — have not been very pleasant for women. And regarding the purposeful and even pleasure-filled rejection of the Biblical commands, when one discounts the straightforward condemnations of things one doesn’t like, one will find others discounting the things upon one has come to depend.  Why should one expect mercy and compassion and tolerance? Because Comcast said so? LOL.

Here is a list of  the 379 business groups that want gay marriage to be a right.

Corporate America Wants Gay Marriage

 

 

 

 

 

Taney Dragons Name Traced To Infamous Judge

Taney Dragons Name Traced To Infamous Judge

Taney Dragons Name Traced To Infamous Judge

The Taney Dragons, the melting pot of a baseball team from Philadelphia with a black girl pitcher, won the hearts of all with their just-ended Little League World Series run in which they finished third in the nation.

So where does the name Taney come from? It’s from Taney Street, a four-block stretch of pavement that runs from Pine to Bainbridge just across the Schuylkill River from Penn.

And for whom is Taney Street named? That’s the irony.  It is for the man who wrote the Dred Scott decision, the most racist and viciously destructive Supreme Court decision in our history.

Dred Scott was more hateful and irrational than Roe v Wade. It was more racist than Plessy v Ferguson. It was crueler than Buck vs Bell.

It declared blacks to be less than human. It started the Civil War.

Roger Taney was a Democrat — no surprise, really –from Maryland who was picked by Andrew Jackson to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1835 after the great John Marshall died in a stage coach accident.

It is said he favored States’ Rights but that certainly wasn’t the case concerning slavery. In 1842, he ruled that Pennsylvania could not stop a Maryland man from seizing former slaves that had taken up residence in the Keystone State.

It was in 1857, he really let the mask drop.  In Dred Scott he wrote regarding blacks:

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in regard to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted; but the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect

So much for “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”

Those governing Philadelphia at the time apparently thought the decision was peachy.  They named the street for him the next year.

Three years after that our country’s bloodiest war began. Taney died before it ended on Oct. 12, 1864, still the chief justice and giving as much grief to the Lincoln administration as he could but with his fangs largely pulled.

So thank you Mo’ne Davis and the rest of the Dragons, for the deserved mocking you gave to one of America’s great bigots.

 

 

Adopt Swiss System

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stuck down a significant part of Obamacare yesterday, July 22, in their ruling on Halbig v. Burwell ending federal subsidies to those who purchased insurance on the federal exchange.

Why?

Because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as written only allows subsidies for insurance bought on state-exchanges. This stipulation was an important reason why the law got passed as Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska insisted on it for his necessary vote.

What the D.C. court did was declare that the IRS had no power in passing an edict overturning these words written in law.

Since 34 states — including Pennsylvania — have refused to create health exchanges the cost for many who have bought Obamacare insurance will rise dramatically because of this quite right decision.

It should be noted that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled on Halbig v. Burwell deciding in favor of the government and the case is bound for the Supreme Court.

Obamacare was poorly conceived and written with mind-boggling hubris. However, as the lollipop may be snatched away with Halbig resulting in crying until it is returned, it is imperative for the adults in Washington — namely the Tea Party Republicans — to act prophylactically  and not merely repeal the pollution but replace it.

A good model is the Swiss health care law.

It mandates the purchase by all of basic insurance to be used in the case of illness or accident or pregnancy and prohibits insurance companies from making a profit on this insurance.

The insured pays a premium of up to 8 percent of his income for this plan, and if the premium exceeds this the government gives him a cash subsidy to cover it.

Insurance companies can make a profit on supplemental policies covering things like birth control, private hospital rooms and routine dental care.

Notably businesses are not involved.  Switzerland has the highest life expectancy in the world. Healthcare costs there are 11.4 percent of GDP compared with 17.6 percent in the U.S.

Adopt Swiss System

Adopt Swiss System

 

 

Hobby Lobby Wins, SEIU Loses

The Supreme Court, this morning, June 30, held that privately held corporations don’t have to cover abortion drugs for their employees as it would violate the First Amendment rights of their owners.

The decision in Burwell vs Hobby Lobby Stores was 5-4 with the all the Democrat-appointed justices dissenting.

It was written by Samuel Alito.

The Court also ruled 5-4, again with Alito writing the opinion and the Democrat-appointed justices dissenting, that those who are not “full-fledged” public employees  don’t have to pay dues to a public employee union as this would violate their First Amendent rights.

The case was Harris et al v Quinn, Governor of Illinois in with the State of Illinois was trying to make home health workers pay dues to Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Healthcare Illinois and Indiana.

Union dues are used to fund the campaigns of Democrats.

Hat tip Bryan Preston at PJMedia.com

 

Hobby Lobby Wins, SEIU Loses

 

Hobby Lobby Wins, SEIU Loses

 

SCOTUS Spanks Obama, Also Pro Lifers Win

The Supreme Court, today, June 26, upheld the complaint of a Pepsi-Cola distributor that appointments made by Barack Obama to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional.

The complainant, Noel Canning, said that the appointments of three of the five members of the board were invalid because they were made with the approval of the Senate.

The Senate was taking a three-day break when Obama made the appointments.

The Constitution grants the President the power to make recess appointments which are appointments made when the Senate was not in session.

The Supreme Court unanimously held that a three-day break was not what the Constitution meant concerning the recess appointment clause and strongly suggested that a president wait at least 10 days before invoking it.

In other matters, the Court today unanimously overturned a Massachusetts law requiring  pro-life counselors stay 35-feet from an entrance or driveway to an abortion clinic.

It said that the law violated the counselors’ First Amendment rights because it restricts access to public ways and sidewalks that have been traditionally open for speech activities, among other things.

 

SCOTUS Spanks Obama, Also Pro Lifers Win

 

SCOTUS Spanks Obama, Also Pro Lifers Win

 

 

Supreme Court Ends Aereo Broadcasts

The Supreme Court ruled, today, June 25, that Aereo Inc. was violating the copyrights of broadcasters in providing its service.

Aereo had developed a technology to allow persons to watch over-the-air television broadcasts on their computers.

The broadcasters led by ABC said no fair.

The ruling, written by Stephen Breyer, was 6-3 with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joining him.

The dissent, written by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, was not so much in sympathy with Aereo but noted that the technical claim made by the networks in the lower courts —  namely that Aereo was the primary abuser of copyright which means actually using copyrighted work — was incorrect.

They recommended that the case be returned to the lower courts and appeared to have an expectation that Aereo would be found in violation of  “secondary liability” which means that they would be responsible for infringement by third parties.

The danger of ignoring the reasoning in the dissent means that it creates the possibility of new claims against internet service providers and such that previously had an expectation of immunity.

 

Supreme Court Ends Aereo Broadcasts

Supreme Court Ends Aereo Broadcasts

 

Supreme Court Changes Decisions

Apparently, the Supreme Court changes decisions after issuing rulings.

It’s not something taught in the typical civics lesson.

The matter was revealed by New York Times columnist Adam Liptak last month.

David Zvenyach, the general counsel to the Council of the District of Columbia, writes computer code as a hobby. He applied the JavaScript application Node to crawl the opinions posted on the Supreme Court  every five minutes.  He  then follows up with a manual tweet.

He explains why here.

Kudos to Zvenyach and all hail institutional transparency.

Hat tip Gigaom.com

Supreme Court Changes Decisions

 

Supreme Court Changes Decisions

 

Supreme Court Ruling On AZ Voting Was Win For Good Guys

J. Christian Adams, the former Justice Department civil rights attorney who has made a crusade of fighting abuses by the Obama Administration, is saying the Supreme Court ruling overturning Arizona’s requirement that proof of citizenship be presented when voting is actually a huge win for the good guys despite the hand-wringing occurring in some conservative circles.

Adams says that only a insignificant technical point was overturned while allowing Arizona to continue the citizenship mandate via other means.  He said the corrupters lost big and know it.

Read his explanation here.

Toomey Praises New Fed Judges

Toomey Praises New Fed Judges — The Senate, last week,  Nitza Quiñones Alejandro and Jeffrey Schmehl as U.S. District Judges for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, reports Sen. Pat Toomey.

President Obama nominated these two judges last November upon a joint recommendation from Toomey and Sen. Bob Casey.

“Since joining the Senate, I’ve worked closely with Sen. Casey to fill Pennsylvania’s judicial vacancies with qualified, experienced judges who have unquestioned honesty, ability and integrity,” Toomey said. “I believe both of these individuals meet this high standard.”

Toomey said that in her 21 years on the bench, Nitza Quiñones Alejandro has presided over many cases incorporating different facets of the law. In addition to her extensive experience in the courtroom, she has also remained active in her community through her work with schools and mentoring summer law interns.

“She is eminently qualified and a committed public servant. Moreover, I am proud that Judge Quiñones will be the first Latina judge to serve in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,” Toomey said.

Toomey said that Jeffrey Schmehl’s colleagues appointed him president judge of the Berks County Court of Common Pleas in 2008, a sign of his fitness for the bench. He has also helped veterans in need of legal assistance by working to establish a veterans court in Berks County.  He has a passion for the law and will be a dedicated jurist.

“I also am pleased that Judge Schmehl will be sitting in the Reading federal courthouse which has long needed a new judge,” Toomey said.

Toomey Praises New Fed Judges